Elimination of Indiana Toll Road exit possible

[mukade]

"The private operator of the Indiana Toll Road continues to study the possible elimination of westbound Exit 21 and still plans to make a decision by this fall..."

Elimination of Toll Road exit still in play (Times of NW Indiana)

[Brandon]

WTF!?!  That's I-80 that uses those ramps!  Rebuild it, yes.  Eliminate that part of the Burns Harbor Interchange?  NO!

Stupid, stupid, STUPID idea selling the Toll Road.  I am ever-so-glad the idea fell out of vogue before they could try it to ISTHA.  InDOT should void the contract and take it back.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Eliminating Exit 21 - partially or entirely - on the Toll Road is an ill-advised suggestion. This is one of the busiest connections to the Toll Road (especially for trucks) besides nearby I-65, and removing it would choke traffic on I-65. I actually drove that stretch during the initial westbound exit ramp closure (by accident; I kept forgetting the ramp was closed), and the volume of traffic heading to I-65 was astounding.

Granted, the ramps in their current forms are in very poor shape and need repair, but I am sure something can be done. They just increased the cash tolls last week, so what's the problem in using a portion of that to fund the repairs?

I'm sure they can come up with a solution; completely removing the ramps with no consideration of replacing them is NOT one.

(As an interesting side effect, that would mean that I-80 would be rerouted by default onto I-65, pushing the I-80/90 multiplex four miles further west.)

Brandon, if there's a void in the contract, wouldn't Indiana be forced to recoup the funds given in the lease?

[Brandon]

Brandon, if there's a void in the contract, wouldn't Indiana be forced to recoup the funds given in the lease?

An elimination of the Burns Harbor Interchange could be just cause.  This is nuts.

[mukade]

Remember, the article said that option will be studied along with two others. It does not say the interchange will be removed. As a matter of fact, rebuilding the ramps is the most likely option. It also says INDOT has a say in it. I personally would favor a reconfigured and simplified interchange.

As for the popularity of the ITR lease, it is very popular.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Remember, the article said that option will be studied along with two others. It does not say the interchange will be removed. As a matter of fact, rebuilding the ramps is the most likely option. It also says INDOT has a say in it. I personally would favor a reconfigured and simplified interchange.

As for the popularity of the ITR lease, it is very popular.

Point made. I just think the elimination option shouldn't even be considered. I think the interchange should be simplified. A modified trumpet or a tri-stack interchange with smoother curves and grades should suffice here.

[mukade]

If I had to guess, whatever will be built will be on the inexpensive side. ITR won't build an elaborate interchange for sure, and INDOT has been scaling back recently (for example, US 24/I-469, US 31/US 20, I465/I-69). That plus all those movements in the current obsolete interchange are unnecessary.

As for INDOT kicking some money in, I would say they should. This whole article is probably all about ITR getting some funding from INDOT.

[mgk920]

The way things are lined up in that area, I can easily see eliminating the east-pointing ramps at I-65 (at least for the I-65 part, I would keep the US 12 connection there as it is as a separate 'trumpet' - see my 'fictional' musing from a few weeks ago) and the west-pointing ramps at I-80, as these two interchanges are sufficiently close together that combined with the I-65/I-80/94 interchange, it all kind of functions as one very large interchange as it now sits.   The only big change in functionality that I can sense should that be done is that traffic between the Toll Road to the west and I-94 to the east would then have to pass though the current I-65/I-80/94 interchange.

Let's see what the study finds before passing judgment on it, OK?



(Maybe I should fire those 'fictional' thoughts off to INDOT and the Toll Road guys and see what they say.)



Mike

[Stephane Dumas]

Remember, the article said that option will be studied along with two others. It does not say the interchange will be removed. As a matter of fact, rebuilding the ramps is the most likely option. It also says INDOT has a say in it. I personally would favor a reconfigured and simplified interchange.

As for the popularity of the ITR lease, it is very popular.

Point made. I just think the elimination option shouldn't even be considered. I think the interchange should be simplified. A modified trumpet or a tri-stack interchange with smoother curves and grades should suffice here.

I digged the Internet Archives and I spotted this archived copy then Stephen Summers scanned of a INDOT/INTR interchange reconfiguration proposal.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021220081218/http://nwindianahwys.homestead.com/i80909451newint.html

[InterstateNG]

The headline in the OP is sensationally designed to attract page views and "insightful" reader commentary.  I doubt it's a serious option.

[Super Mateo]

Wow.  What a bad idea to remove the ramp that connects I-80 with.....itself.  The whole intersection needs to be reconfigured in such a way that I-80 followers aren't restricted to a single lane and a merge with eastbound drivers transferring roads.

I-80 has a few of these.  There's the double trumpet in eastern Ohio, where I-80 and I-76 switch roads just to keep 80 north of 76; this road switch in Indiana; the 294 split in eastern Illinois, where westbound drivers have to pile into the far right lane, until another lane comes in from the right, and only those two lanes continue west; and a cloverleaf near the Quad Cities, where 80 bumps instead of crosses 74 because Iowa refused to let Illinois renumber the freeways more logically.

[SSOWorld]

I digged the Internet Archives and I spotted this archived copy then Stephen Summers scanned of a INDOT/INTR interchange reconfiguration proposal.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021220081218/http://nwindianahwys.homestead.com/i80909451newint.html

Wow - look at that old Marquette Interchange type loop ramp. 

[vdeane]

Looks like the loops are for the service area and a lesser movement.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Bumping this thread because of a significant update regarding this issue. Source here.

Long story short: the ITR Concession Company meets with state officials next week to discuss what to do with the troubled Toll Road west to I-80 west interchange, with four possible options:

1. Eliminate the west-to-west movement, basically forcing I-80 west travelers to use I-65 to complete the transition,
2. Replace the west-to-west transition with a cloverleaf ramp, along with the westbound Toll Road entrance,
3. Eliminate ALL ramp connections to the Toll Road (which is reportedly moved off the table), or
4. Rehabilitate the existing ramp structures to acceptable levels.

There's also some talk of possibly shifting the ramps either toward Ripley Street or at the point where the Toll Road and I-94 meet, but it's not yet under serious consideration. Regardless the choice, they are looking to get a decision reached quickly, since they wish for construction to begin sometime around 2014. I'll keep you posted.

[Brandon]

^^ The only option that makes any sense is number four.  Number one is idiotic, as is number three, and number two would lead to congestion worse than we see now due to a loop ramp.

[Henry]

Of course, we don't need to make congestion at I-65's nothern end worse than it already is! The interchange rehab is the only thing that makes sense.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

The Post Tribune actually have some price figures in regards to the above listed alternatives.

Option 1 would be the cheapest option at $6.8 million. While it could reportedly improve traffic flow along Ripley Street, it could be detrimental to those truck stops that get business from truckers that use the ramp to access those facilities.

Option 2 would be the most expensive at nearly $14 million. The study reports this alternative would provide more acceptable traffic flow and bridge standards. However, there are environmental, maintenance, and right-of-way issues that could surface.

Option 3 would be in the middle ($8.2 million), but is - again - removed from the table. It would cost the Toll Road Commission money (since some movements are tolled) and cause heavy congestion at the I-65 interchange. (Why they are not thinking about that outcome with option 1, I do not know. However, if the recent round of closures serve as any indication, it isn't pretty.)

Option 4 has no known finite amount at this time. Source

As I said earlier in this thread, why not consider a C/D* trumpet, with the ramp from I-80/94 to I-90 west serving as the loop? It keeps all movements at two levels and provide for slightly smoother transitions. The ramp speeds may be the same (25-30 mph), but the line of sight would be better and the ride would be less precarious.

*I call it C/D because the I-90 west ramp would feed into the toll gate.