Kentucky is nearing completion of its plans to 6 lane the entire stretch of I-65 throughout the state. Traffic along I-65 both north and south is congested most of the time and continuing to grow throughout the state. I believe that Indot also needs to push forward and widen I-65 statewide to a minimum of 6 lanes to improve traffic flow and eliminate rolling roadblocks.
There was a .pdf linked somewhere in this forum which stated that widening I-65 from Gary to Louisville was one of INDOT's prioritized long-term plans, along with finishing I-69 from Bloomington to Indianapolis and (I believe) the Illiana Corridor. So, it's in the works, to some degree.
Some areas are already getting the widening treatment now. Work on widening I-65 from U.S. 52 to I-865 is nearly complete (the Lebanon to I-865 portion was finished in 2010). A stretch from Indiana 2 to U.S. 30 is being looked at for widening in anticipation of the Illiana (some construction is already in progress).
I agree that I-65 could use that extra lane for the entire state of Indiana. In one way or another, I think it will happen.
It's a "nice-to-have". But unless the "rolling roadblocks" involve significant amounts of recurring congestion instead of just "I can only go 55 because of trucks", it isn't outright necessary. From a planning level persective (without getting into the nitty-gritty details of traffic flow, peak hour, directional distribution, LOS calculations, etc etc), there are some segments of 65 that may warrant 6 lanes...the aforementioned 865 to 52, through Lafayette (generally IN 38 to IN 43, but especially between 26 and 25), and south of Indy to Edinburgh. But some segments of I-65, especially south of Columbus and north of Lafayette, just don't have the traffic volumes to justify being a high priority. Aside from Indy south to Franklin and north to Lebanon, a stronger case could be made for widening I-69 up to Anderson or I-70 west to IN 39 and east to IN 9.
I drive I-65 between Louisville and Indy at least twice a month and I can tell you that 6-laning is badly needed on the entire stretch. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to reroute to US 31 because of an accident on I-65 that may have been avoided with the extra lanes. There are just too many trucks on this road to justify not doing this. This should be a higher priority than upgrading the rural sections of US 31 between Plymouth and Westfield (which I also travel frequently).
Crashes are caused more by weather and poor driving than a lack of lanes. Extra lanes on I-65 will not help this. Again, outside of the greater Indy area, I've cited other Interstate routes that should be a higher priority than a "statewide 6-lane I-65"...
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Crashes are caused more by weather and poor driving than a lack of lanes. Extra lanes on I-65 will not help this. Again, outside of the greater Indy area, I've cited other Interstate routes that should be a higher priority than a "statewide 6-lane I-65"...
Nearly all of the crashes I've encountered have been during dry weather. Of course poor driving is a factor in almost every crash everywhere, but an extra lane means fewer interactions between cars.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 17, 2013, 10:08:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Crashes are caused more by weather and poor driving than a lack of lanes. Extra lanes on I-65 will not help this. Again, outside of the greater Indy area, I've cited other Interstate routes that should be a higher priority than a "statewide 6-lane I-65"...
Nearly all of the crashes I've encountered have been during dry weather. Of course poor driving is a factor in almost every crash everywhere, but an extra lane means fewer interactions between cars.
That, and less impatience when small vehicles are passing trucks. Indiana restricts trucks and vehicles with trailers to the two right lanes when there are three travel lanes in a direction.
QuoteFroggie, you don't drive it much, do you?
Not a whole lot, since I don't get back home that often...but I regularly drive routes that are much worse for truck traffic...I-78...I-81...I-95. Also, truck volumes are factored into LOS calculations during a detailed analysis (as is a multitude of other factors). Lastly, your reference to impatience in your last post results in poor driving when it shouldn't.
Quotebut an extra lane means fewer interactions between cars.
Not necessarily. Depending on how the drivers are in a given area (and this is now more often than not), it actually leads to MORE interaction between cars as you have cars darting back and forth across multiple lanes in order to keep up their high speed.
Guys, I'm not saying that a 6-lane I-65 across Indiana is a bad thing, and I said that at the beginning. My point is that there are other deserving roadways in the state with higher traffic and greater needs than some of the I-65 segments (also cited earlier).
It is needed as a six lane for I-65 as the traffic is horrid on I-65 every time I travel up to Anderson. Go every month as the mother in law lives in Anderson and it is a goal to keep the wife happy.
The arguments on both sides make sense. However, with I-65 being a vital link from Louisville to Chicago, and the intermediate cites in between the major cities (Columbus, Seymour, Edinburgh, Lafayette, etc.), having it go at least 6-lanes the entire way would be inevitable. They should work around those immediate areas first, then finish it in future years.
The "spokes" of I-465 could use the same love; I do agree there. However, mile for mile, I-65 needs it the most. I-69 would be next on the list.
Maybe while they're trying to figure out how to connect I-69 to Bloomington, they could do a major widening of I-65 in the interim. I wouldn't be surprised if this was done in phases, such as this:
Gary to Lafayette
Lafayette to Indianapolis
Indianapolis to Louisville
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 02:57:15 AM
It's a "nice-to-have". But unless the "rolling roadblocks" involve significant amounts of recurring congestion instead of just "I can only go 55 because of trucks", it isn't outright necessary. From a planning level persective (without getting into the nitty-gritty details of traffic flow, peak hour, directional distribution, LOS calculations, etc etc), there are some segments of 65 that may warrant 6 lanes...the aforementioned 865 to 52, through Lafayette (generally IN 38 to IN 43, but especially between 26 and 25), and south of Indy to Edinburgh. But some segments of I-65, especially south of Columbus and north of Lafayette, just don't have the traffic volumes to justify being a high priority. Aside from Indy south to Franklin and north to Lebanon, a stronger case could be made for widening I-69 up to Anderson or I-70 west to IN 39 and east to IN 9.
I-69 up to Southeastern Pkwy (which is only 5 miles) might be higher priority than I-65, but not all the way up to Anderson.
I-70 is probably in a similar boat with I-65 due to the truck traffic, and it's been a while since I've been on I-70 outside of the Indy area, but I'd think that having Chicago at the end of I-65 produces higher traffic counts than I-70. Yes, they should definitely start at Lebanon and Greenwood and work "out" from there, but the entire road needs it.
The same plans that INDOT had which called for widening I-65 to six lanes across the state also called for I-70 across the state to be widened too. But I will also agree about I-69, perferably up to Anderson but most definently up to Exit 210. I-69 from Indy south to Bloomington better at least be designed so that it can be widened to six lanes pretty easily when it's built.
AADT for busiest four lane sections:
- I-65 - US 30-SR 2 (60,297, 42,247)
- I-65 - SR 43 to SR 25 (45,162)
- I-65 - SR 26 to SR 38 (40,740)
- I-65 - I-865 to I-465 (41,013, 45,550)
- I-65 - Greenwood-US 31 in Taylorsville (60,517, 56,902, 53,013, 44,822)
- I-69 - SR 37 to SR 67 (63,093, 57,849, 51,476, 48,261, 41,324)
- I-69 - US 24 to I-469 (40,629)
- I-69 - Union Chapel Rd. to north of SR 1 (unknown)
- I-70 - SR 39 - SR 267 (44,077)
- I-70 - Mt. Comfort Rd to SR 9 (48,227)
- I-70 - US 27 - SR 227 (39,896)
- I-74 - I-465 to Post Road (39,993)
- I-465 - northwest corner (60,000+)
I think I-65 from US 30 to US 231 essentially has six lanes if they add an asphalt shoulder on the right.
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
IDOT District 3 did a feasibility study of 6-laning I-80 all the way west to I-39 while I was there. Every new overpass, interchange and mainline bridge since about 2002 has been built to accommodate it. Most apparent from MP 115 to MP 122, but also included in recent interchange rebuilds at Seneca, Marseilles and Utica.
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 17, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
IDOT District 3 did a feasibility study of 6-laning I-80 all the way west to I-39 while I was there. Every new overpass, interchange and mainline bridge since about 2002 has been built to accommodate it. Most apparent from MP 115 to MP 122, but also included in recent interchange rebuilds at Seneca, Marseilles and Utica.
And District 3 has done a very nice job with I-80 out there. It puts District 1's section of I-80 to shame.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 17, 2013, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 02:57:15 AM
It's a "nice-to-have". But unless the "rolling roadblocks" involve significant amounts of recurring congestion instead of just "I can only go 55 because of trucks", it isn't outright necessary. From a planning level persective (without getting into the nitty-gritty details of traffic flow, peak hour, directional distribution, LOS calculations, etc etc), there are some segments of 65 that may warrant 6 lanes...the aforementioned 865 to 52, through Lafayette (generally IN 38 to IN 43, but especially between 26 and 25), and south of Indy to Edinburgh. But some segments of I-65, especially south of Columbus and north of Lafayette, just don't have the traffic volumes to justify being a high priority. Aside from Indy south to Franklin and north to Lebanon, a stronger case could be made for widening I-69 up to Anderson or I-70 west to IN 39 and east to IN 9.
I-69 up to Southeastern Pkwy (which is only 5 miles) might be higher priority than I-65, but not all the way up to Anderson.
I-70 is probably in a similar boat with I-65 due to the truck traffic, and it's been a while since I've been on I-70 outside of the Indy area, but I'd think that having Chicago at the end of I-65 produces higher traffic counts than I-70. Yes, they should definitely start at Lebanon and Greenwood and work "out" from there, but the entire road needs it.
I-70 is another corridor needs 6-laning but since it was identified as a "Corridor of the Future" and there was planning for separated truck lanes, then the 2 lanes would be sufficient in that case. However truck only lanes are looking like less and less of a likelihood so adding a third lane is also of importance here as well..
With regard to froggies comment. The congestion on the freeway is not at critical mass yet right now LOS levels are probably at C and D levels at peak periods. but D isn't an acceptable level of service. The third lane is also needed to address future traffic growth along the corridor which will continue to rise. Additional widening in Lafayette area should focus on a 4 lane section in that area at eventual build-out, as well as 4 laning I-65 from the Borman south to the US 231 (Crown Point) interchange. Also I-65 will need to be 4 laned from I-465 south to the greenwood interchange south of Indy. 4-laning may also be necessary in the "falls' region depending on future growth of the kentukiana region.
Quote from: Brandon on September 18, 2013, 06:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 17, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
IDOT District 3 did a feasibility study of 6-laning I-80 all the way west to I-39 while I was there. Every new overpass, interchange and mainline bridge since about 2002 has been built to accommodate it. Most apparent from MP 115 to MP 122, but also included in recent interchange rebuilds at Seneca, Marseilles and Utica.
And District 3 has done a very nice job with I-80 out there. It puts District 1's section of I-80 to shame.
Well considering the latest report that the I-80 bridge in Joliet is in dire need of repair, will we possibly see planning stages to expand I-80 to 3 lanes from Indy to Quad Cities?
Granted, 3 lanes to I-39 is really needed, but I would not be surprised for 3 lanes through the entire state
Quote from: ET21 on September 18, 2013, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 18, 2013, 06:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 17, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
IDOT District 3 did a feasibility study of 6-laning I-80 all the way west to I-39 while I was there. Every new overpass, interchange and mainline bridge since about 2002 has been built to accommodate it. Most apparent from MP 115 to MP 122, but also included in recent interchange rebuilds at Seneca, Marseilles and Utica.
And District 3 has done a very nice job with I-80 out there. It puts District 1's section of I-80 to shame.
Well considering the latest report that the I-80 bridge in Joliet is in dire need of repair, will we possibly see planning stages to expand I-80 to 3 lanes from Indy to Quad Cities?
Granted, 3 lanes to I-39 is really needed, but I would not be surprised for 3 lanes through the entire state
I-80 doesn't go to Indy.
I just drove I-65 from near Wolcott to Chicago and that stretch of road, south of US 30 is in dire need of another lane, or trucks shouldn't have a lower speed limit. It was horrible going both directions.
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 18, 2013, 12:54:43 PM
I just drove I-65 from near Wolcott to Chicago and that stretch of road, south of US 30 is in dire need of another lane, or trucks shouldn't have a lower speed limit. It was horrible going both directions.
:cool: Exactly :cool:
Plus it will also make the highway much safer due to the reduced number of irritated drivers. Y'lll settle down them nerves now.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 18, 2013, 12:50:01 PM
Quote from: ET21 on September 18, 2013, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 18, 2013, 06:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 17, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
Froggie, you don't drive it much, do you? There are plenty of Midwestern freeways that could be six lanes due to the amount of truck traffic. I-65 between Gary and Indy is one of them. I-80 west of Joliet is another.
IDOT District 3 did a feasibility study of 6-laning I-80 all the way west to I-39 while I was there. Every new overpass, interchange and mainline bridge since about 2002 has been built to accommodate it. Most apparent from MP 115 to MP 122, but also included in recent interchange rebuilds at Seneca, Marseilles and Utica.
And District 3 has done a very nice job with I-80 out there. It puts District 1's section of I-80 to shame.
Well considering the latest report that the I-80 bridge in Joliet is in dire need of repair, will we possibly see planning stages to expand I-80 to 3 lanes from Indy to Quad Cities?
Granted, 3 lanes to I-39 is really needed, but I would not be surprised for 3 lanes through the entire state
I-80 doesn't go to Indy.
I should have mentioned that my "Indy" refers to the IL/IN border. Better to say IN-Quad Cities after looking over it again
QuoteThe congestion on the freeway is not at critical mass yet right now LOS levels are probably at C and D levels at peak periods. but D isn't an acceptable level of service.
Per FHWA, D is considered acceptable. Your local policy may vary...
Quote from: ET21 on September 18, 2013, 12:09:58 PM
Well considering the latest report that the I-80 bridge in Joliet is in dire need of repair, will we possibly see planning stages to expand I-80 to 3 lanes from Indy to Quad Cities?
Granted, 3 lanes to I-39 is really needed, but I would not be surprised for 3 lanes through the entire state
IDOT District 1 is in the middle of a planning study that will add a lane to I-80 in each direction from US 30 in New Lenox to Ridge Road in Minooka. They are already starting to program some bridge replacements in anticipation of the project. The District 3 section from MP 122 (Minooka exit) to MP 115 (1 mile west of the new Brisbin Road exit) will be an easy conversion; all that is needed is an outside shoulder and re-striping the pavement, but they are waiting for the eastern section in District 1 to be completed first to avoid creating a bottleneck situation.
http://i-80will.com/
Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
QuoteThe congestion on the freeway is not at critical mass yet right now LOS levels are probably at C and D levels at peak periods. but D isn't an acceptable level of service.
Per FHWA, D is considered acceptable. Your local policy may vary...
Looking at the LOS 4 information that still seems like a fair amount of congestion is acceptable to the FHWA. To design roads to barely meet acceptable standards doesn't make sense, because they will likely drop below a LOS D very easily with just a moderate increase in volume. not to mention the road grinding to a complete halt during any sort of road incident. At least with 3 lanes it will reduce the likelihood of incidents and also allow traffic to flow through in the event of an incident.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 19, 2013, 04:40:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
QuoteThe congestion on the freeway is not at critical mass yet right now LOS levels are probably at C and D levels at peak periods. but D isn't an acceptable level of service.
Per FHWA, D is considered acceptable. Your local policy may vary...
Looking at the LOS 4 information that still seems like a fair amount of congestion is acceptable to the FHWA. To design roads to barely meet acceptable standards doesn't make sense, because they will likely drop below a LOS D very easily with just a moderate increase in volume. not to mention the road grinding to a complete halt during any sort of road incident. At least with 3 lanes it will reduce the likelihood of incidents and also allow traffic to flow through in the event of an incident.
LOS depends on context. In NJ, LOS 'D' is fine, and sometimes we settle for LOS 'E' or even 'F' for certain movements because we just can't do better without spending hundreds of millions. In Nebraska, 'C' is cause for concern.
QuoteLooking at the LOS 4 information that still seems like a fair amount of congestion is acceptable to the FHWA. To design roads to barely meet acceptable standards doesn't make sense, because they will likely drop below a LOS D very easily with just a moderate increase in volume. not to mention the road grinding to a complete halt during any sort of road incident. At least with 3 lanes it will reduce the likelihood of incidents and also allow traffic to flow through in the event of an incident.
It should be noted that while LOS D may "seem" congested, traffic still moves at/close to the posted speed at LOS D. LOS E is where you start to have the potential flow breakdown issues you describe. Also, given traffic trends over the past 10 years, it would require a very detailed analysis to determine projected traffic levels...this would include current and expected land use and other possible transportation improvements, including non-freeway improvements. The old adage of traffic increasing x% amount per year just doesn't apply anymore.
It should also be noted that, unless you have a VERY LIGHT load of traffic, any crash can tie up a multi-lane highway. I have seen far too many cases in my time of freeways with 3 and even 4 lanes per direction moving free-flow, and then suddenly bottling up because there was an "incident" on the shoulder, not even blocking a lane. Bad driver habits are often the root of this, not a lack of lanes.
For what its worth, INDOT's criteria gives a minimum LOS C for rural interstate design projects. Urban reconstruction is allowed to be D.
I'm of the opinion to widen where it makes sense, but not to spend the money widening just to make 65 & 70 6 lanes across the whole state. That kind of policy seems to be driven by politicians more than data.
I drive on I-65 in Kentucky and Tennessee a lot, and the six-laning in Kentucky has been a tremendous improvement. From the Kentucky border to Nashville it's just four lanes, there's too much traffic to pass slower vehicles most of the time, and traffic is slowed down and jammed up a lot. From the Kentucky border north to Bowling Green traffic flows so much better; traffic is pretty much never slowed down or jammed up. In the Nashville to Bowling Green stretch, I've seen many accidents cause traffic to slow to a crawl in Tennessee, but I've never seen that happen in Kentucky. Free flowing traffic has more breathing room in the event of a lane blockage than traffic flow that's barely adequate to start with.
I have less experience with I-65 north of Louisville but chances are if it's being considered by IDOT in long-term plans it needs to be done right now :pan:. In a civilized country traffic on rural freeways should flow freely, considering that rural roads are the cheapest and easiest kind of road to upgrade to achieve free flow conditions. If you can't even achieve free flow where it's easiest to do so, you're in really bad shape.
Quote from: Steve on September 19, 2013, 10:35:00 PMLOS depends on context. In NJ, LOS 'D' is fine, and sometimes we settle for LOS 'E' or even 'F' for certain movements because we just can't do better without spending hundreds of millions. In Nebraska, 'C' is cause for concern.
Interesting; it's only logical that rural states would be less used to congestion and have less tolerance for it, and fortunately for them it's easier to fix congestion in a rural state. A reasonable expectation when a person drives on a
road (as opposed to a parking lot) is to be able to travel at the posted speed limit and have enough room to maneuver, which would correspond to LOS 'C'. Nothing less than that should be accepted; obviously that takes a commitment from the whole government, not just the DOT (*cough* funding *cough*), but lowering your expectations will only lead to worse results. What I'd shoot for as a minimum would be B for rural freeways and C for urban freeways.
However, as Steve noted, it's often not feasible to shoot for such level-of-service. At some point you have to draw the line between higher level-of-service and construction/right-of-way/maintenance costs. Is it really worth widening a road that may see platoons of traffic, but traffic that still moves close to the speed limit, when the cost of that widening is tens of millions of dollars (which could go a long way towards bridge repair...LOTS of bridges nationwide that need that), or takes out acres of wetlands (which has father-reaching implications than most people realize...from water quality to flood mitigation), or wipes out homes and businesses...land that is contributing tax revenue to the local jurisdiction? This is a question that needs much more detailed analysis with DATA than some people's driving perceptions.
It should be noted that platooning has been considered dangerous behavior on freeways since the 60s (I have a driving manual from the mid 60s which stresses, with diagrams, that good driving policy is to drive between the platoons wherever possible). Thus if an expansion might not make sense from a pure LOS point of view, there may be a safety argument to be made.
If there is a crash issue, yes....crash data would be factored in during the detailed analysis I cited earlier.