incorrect i-469 directions

[silverback1065]

I drove I-469 for the 1st time a few weekends ago and noticed that the highway in some places is signed as north/south, but the mile posts on the barrier said east/west.  Why is this? was the direction changed recently and not everything has been changed over? I drove the part from 69 to us 24 (south of ft wayne)

[PurdueBill]

469's directions have started as eastbound at mile 0, changing to north around mile 15, then west further beyond.  Ostensibly this was so that there was not an overlap for 11 miles between US 33 SB and I-469 NB (and vice versa).  When US 24 used the southern end, there were two westbound routes (469 and 24) at the start and one southbound (33) when the road indeed probably should be NORTH. 

Worse, new blue 2/10 mile markers erected this summer got it wrong at the changeover from east to north and continue with east up to at least the US 30 interchange, where US 30 WEST joins the northbound lanes, with US 24 WB joining the party 2 miles later.  I haven't inquired about it from INDOT, but it seems like at least a little north-south section (as it was) is best to avoid an abrupt change from EB to WB in signage.

Just calling the route north-south would also put all the mile markers and exit numbers in order, instead of the top of the loop increasing westbound (an issue for any full beltway, but avoidable here if just north/south were used instead of E-W/N-S/W-E...).

[hbelkins]

Start here...

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Gd_Rapids_Day_1/Pages/235.html

and work forward to see signage from 2009.

I think 469 should be signed north-south in its entirety.

[PurdueBill]

A motion and a second for N-S only.....can we vote???

[mukade]

While I agree the directions should be marked as N-S only, SR 162, another backward "C" shape route in southern Indiana, is signed the same way. So you start eastbound and end westbound on both ends just as you do on I-469.

One thing I don't know is if they ever thought I-469 might be a complete loop. For that scenario, the change in direction would make sense.

[silverback1065]

While I agree the directions should be marked as N-S only, SR 162, another backward "C" shape route in southern Indiana, is signed the same way. So you start eastbound and end westbound on both ends just as you do on I-469.

One thing I don't know is if they ever thought I-469 might be a complete loop. For that scenario, the change in direction would make sense.

it was supposed to be a full loop but never became one due to funding i think. 469 isn't a very useful interstate for local traffic

[NE2]

I-69 is the west side of the loop.

[Henry]

While I agree the directions should be marked as N-S only, SR 162, another backward "C" shape route in southern Indiana, is signed the same way. So you start eastbound and end westbound on both ends just as you do on I-469.

One thing I don't know is if they ever thought I-469 might be a complete loop. For that scenario, the change in direction would make sense.

it was supposed to be a full loop but never became one due to funding i think. 469 isn't a very useful interstate for local traffic

I think the loop that's there now suits the area just fine.

[silverback1065]

While I agree the directions should be marked as N-S only, SR 162, another backward "C" shape route in southern Indiana, is signed the same way. So you start eastbound and end westbound on both ends just as you do on I-469.

One thing I don't know is if they ever thought I-469 might be a complete loop. For that scenario, the change in direction would make sense.

it was supposed to be a full loop but never became one due to funding i think. 469 isn't a very useful interstate for local traffic

I think the loop that's there now suits the area just fine.

I agree, I was just saying the routes seem to serve the opposite purpose here, with 69 being more useful for local travel and 469 being better as a bypass for through traffic.

[hbelkins]

I don't see much of a purpose for I-469 as it is, other than to carry the rerouted US routes. My experience has been that there is not enough traffic on I-69 to necessitate a bypass.

[english si]

It's a magic blue sign designation, putting Fort Wayne on the map as a city with a interstate loop.

But the freeways are kind of needed to remove the US routes from the urban area, so why the hell not give it the ol' blue-and-red?

[mukade]

I don't see much of a purpose for I-469 as it is, other than to carry the rerouted US routes. My experience has been that there is not enough traffic on I-69 to necessitate a bypass.

For context, Fort Wayne has a population greater than 250,000 and the metro area is around 420,000.

The part of I-469 from SR 37 northward always carried a good amount of traffic. Since US 24 was made into a freeway in 2012, the part from I-69 (south end) to US 24 has picked up a lot of traffic - especially trucks. On the third exit on US 24 east of I-469, a Love's travel center is being built which is evidence that the truck traffic has risen significantly (as expected).

What I-469 does not do well is to function as a reliably faster shortcut around Fort Wayne. I-69 is shorter and traffic usually flows well unless there is an accident or construction. For those two instances, I-469 is very useful for north-south travelers.

My opinion is that I-469 certainly does carry a sufficient amount of traffic and is very much needed to carry east-west traffic thru Fort Wayne. Lets say I-469 would not have been built. Would Jefferson Blvd. and Coliseum Blvd. Be sufficient? Clearly not. Would people be clamoring for an bypass alternative? I am sure they would.

But the freeways are kind of needed to remove the US routes from the urban area, so why the hell not give it the ol' blue-and-red?

Exactly.