Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

[The Ghostbuster]

I think they should have renumbered the existing mileposts and exit numbers on pre-existing Interstate 69 by the mileage of the distance 69 was being extended, which is 184 miles. However, what was done is done.

[SSR_317]

As we all know the northern section of 69 starts at the 200 mile marker even though its off 20 miles or so. Is this common around the country to do this?

No, but INDOT wanted to get the renumbering along the original "Classic I-69" out of the way, and at the time didn't yet know the exact routing (and thus the mileage) of the southern extension. So they decided that adding 200 to the existing exit numbers would suffice. That decision had the added benefit of making it easier on the motorists already familiar with I-69 in that it was consistent..."Just add (or subtract) 200!".

Now if they had just called the "southern extension" Interstate 63 (at least to Memphis), it not only would have fit into the overall Interstate numbering plan better, but would've had the added advantage of not having to change the pre-existing I-69 exit numbers, and would have eliminated this mileage discrepancy altogether. Of course then they would've lost the meaningless benefit of "One number from Canada to México", but with the suffixed southern ends in Texas, they really didn't get that in the current scheme anyway.

[mvak36]

Are they planning to update the mile markers once 69 is done? Or will they leave those as they are? It feels like this was discussed previously on one of these threads, but I can't remember.

[The Ghostbuster]

They will likely leave them as-is, much as I personally dislike it.

[tdindy88]

I did a interesting exercise in the routing of I-69 through Indianapolis. If I-69 was routed along I-465 from Exit 5 east to Exit 53 (the south side I-65 interchange) and then multiplexed with I-65 north through the city and all the way to Exit 123 and then routed along I-465 across the northwest and north sides to Exit 37, it would be roughly a 38-39 mile routing. That would fill the gap between mile markers 163 and 200 a lot better. Not perfect but a lot closer. Not that any of this would happen of course, it would be a ridiculous routing. But if we were to be pedantic let's do it with some style!

As much as I'd like to see them update the mileage on the northern part of I-69, I can live with it remaining as it is. Few Hoosiers probably truly care exactly about this sort of thing.

[ilpt4u]

Would AASHTO or FHWA consider not giving final approval to sign the final segment of 69 being constructed now and also not along 465 until the mileage is fixed?

I mean, FHWA did lay out a list of things, that includes standardized mile markers and exit numbers for both INDOT and KYTC, before I-265 can be signed between I-65/IN and I-71 aka the "East End Crossing" which is still not complete, despite the bridge/route linking the previously physically disconnected I-265s being open since late 2016!

[Rothman]

Would AASHTO or FHWA consider not giving final approval to sign the final segment of 69 being constructed now and also not along 465 until the mileage is fixed?

AASHTO isn't involved in capital project progression.

My bet on FHWA: No.