More US 31 upgrades between Indy and South Bend

[monty]

Connecting the segments of 19 never made sense to begin with. If you're going from Noblesville to Amboy, it's faster to take 37->213->22->CR 1100 E (which is a highway quality road), than to just take 19 and those stupid-ass concurrencies.
If that part of 19 really is more used than 213, then fine, keep it, but please renumber it to 21

Fun fact:  that 1100 E road to Amboy is decommissioned SR 513.

[NWI_Irish96]

Connecting the segments of 19 never made sense to begin with. If you're going from Noblesville to Amboy, it's faster to take 37->213->22->CR 1100 E (which is a highway quality road), than to just take 19 and those stupid-ass concurrencies.
If that part of 19 really is more used than 213, then fine, keep it, but please renumber it to 21

Fun fact:  that 1100 E road to Amboy is decommissioned SR 513.

I'm not surprised. It looks like it used to be a state highway.

[cjw2001]

Keystone Parkway get rid of the lights at I-465

Incorrect.   The lights at 96th street were removed via a new interchange.   The I-465 interchange still has two stoplights for traffic from I-465 turning onto Keystone.

[sprjus4]

Does anyone know Mayor Pete's stance on US 31 becoming an interstate? If Congress ever gets a transportation bill going could he influence US 31 becoming I-67 to Grand Rapids?

SM-G950U

You're right that it won't be by itself.  I'm guessing Biden will want to do some infrastructure projects; they look good politically by creating jobs and generally make proponents of said infrastructure (including many voters) happy. A highway that is nearly to interstate standards could be considered an easy-to-attain project so it wouldn't surprise me. I wouldn't expect it to connect directly with I-196 at its north end because of the endangered species issue and Michigan is already working on the workaround. An new infrastructure bill should at least spur the completion of the I-94 connection. I don't know if either the Keystone Parkway or Meridian St could be upgraded to interstate standards, so that may hold back an I-67 regardless.

I'm going to guess that there might be more luck with BUILD grants (or whatever they will be called). Kentucky got a few of them because Elaine Chao is married to Mitch McConnell. Buttgieg, being from Indiana, might be more inclined to award grants to his home state.

As a South Bend resident, I can attest that this city has had a long bi-partisan interest in raising US-31 between here and Indianapolis to full freeway status, with or without putting an Interstate number on it. While Pete will no doubt have his focus on the big picture, he still has planty of friends in South Bend, including his successor as mayor. If slapping an "I" on the route might help getting funding, then that might happen.

If a future Interstate route is to continue north from the US-20 interchange on the south side, it's true that some improvement would be needed to bring the route up to standards. The main improvement would be to that interchange, a sub-standard cloverleaf. Many other improvements to the South Bend bypass have accomplished in recent years.

The issue is, the improvements InDOT is planning north of Kokomo are not to interstate standards, including the proposed "interchanges" (as proposed, the interchanges proposed along this segment really aren't proper freeway interchanges). If they want to get a freeway along the corridor, perhaps the congressional delegation will need to take a page from Arkansas and designate the route as "Future I-67" like Arkansas did with "Future I-57". That will guarantee any upgrades will need to be done to Interstate standards.

NCDOT recently constructed two interchanges along US-70 that are not up to interstate standards, and will soon be going back to reconstruct them to have longer ramps and wider loops to accommodate Interstate 42 which was designated in 2016, after the initial interchanges were designed. Oddly enough, long term freeway upgrades were for many years prior envisioned, so why they built what they did is beyond me.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://wsbt.com/news/local/residents-sign-petition-against-installing-j-turns-on-us-31

Residents along the US 31 corridor want INDOT to stop putting J-Turns and instead, they want a freeway with interchanges.

[I-39]

https://wsbt.com/news/local/residents-sign-petition-against-installing-j-turns-on-us-31

Residents along the US 31 corridor want INDOT to stop putting J-Turns and instead, they want a freeway with interchanges.

I must say, I find this whole situation incredibly odd. Why is Indiana unwilling to upgrade US 31 to full freeway from South Bend/Elkhart to Indianapolis when every other section of the state is now connected by an Interstate?

[sparker]

The issue is, the improvements InDOT is planning north of Kokomo are not to interstate standards, including the proposed "interchanges" (as proposed, the interchanges proposed along this segment really aren't proper freeway interchanges). If they want to get a freeway along the corridor, perhaps the congressional delegation will need to take a page from Arkansas and designate the route as "Future I-67" like Arkansas did with "Future I-57". That will guarantee any upgrades will need to be done to Interstate standards.

The process for doing just that has been in place since the turn of the century; virtually all the new Interstates designated since that time have gone the congressional-legislation route.  In the case of a potential Interstate designation for US 31, the most likely path would be to persuade the Congressperson representing the South Bend/Elkhart area to agree to carry that legislation through the committee gauntlet.  Pete B's new position, along with his previous office, places him a juncture where he may be able to, if he so chooses, "grease the skids" so to speak.  The wild card here is Michigan and whether they're interested in joining the activity -- and whether they would revive their old circa '64 effort to designate I-67 over what's now I-196.  Technically, an all-Indiana designation could terminate at the I-80/90 junction north of South Bend; even if I-67 does enter MI, it may well terminate at I-94 near Benton Harbor if MDOT declines a I-196 numbering change.  Getting a similarly-minded congressperson from MI to run point regarding that state's portion of the corridor -- of course as part of a coordinated effort with their IN counterparts -- would add an addition level of credence to a lengthy corridor upgrade project such as this one.  Seeing as how there's currently multiple parties and positions within IN circles each with their own agenda (including the locals protesting the J-turn approach north of Kokomo), a clearly defined and unambiguous "master" corridor concept -- such as one intrinsically contained within a high-priority corridor description -- might well be the most effective pathway for getting US 31 elevated to full limited access.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[monty]

This quote from an INDOT spokesman from the recent "no J-turn"  article summarizes the long standing and mind numbing proposals and changes that have been made in the US 31 corridor over the last twenty years: "A lot of the projects that we had planned and were kind of on our radar and on our process for the upcoming years, are actually going to be put on hold while we do a study on US 30 and US 31, both corridors,"  said Bajek.

[I-39]

This quote from an INDOT spokesman from the recent "no J-turn"  article summarizes the long standing and mind numbing proposals and changes that have been made in the US 31 corridor over the last twenty years: "A lot of the projects that we had planned and were kind of on our radar and on our process for the upcoming years, are actually going to be put on hold while we do a study on US 30 and US 31, both corridors,"  said Bajek.

Indiana's whole strategy with the US 31 corridor is super incoherent. Like I said, why must South Bend/Elkhart be the only parts of the state without an Interstate connection? As it stands, the whole dang US 31 corridor is going to be a freeway from Holland MI all the way to Indianapolis; EXCEPT between Plymouth and Kokomo. That makes zero sense. They were so gung ho about building I-69, but I guess upgrading US 31 is just too much. I see the improvements being planned between Plymouth and Kokomo, and it's frankly a disgrace. J-turns have no place on an corridor like US 31. And the "interchanges"  they are planning aren't even proper freeway interchanges.

I was previously on the fence on this issue, but it's clear InDOT is taking the cheap way out here and I applaud the citizens for standing up. Make the whole corridor a fully access controlled freeway like you originally promised. Why did you even bother spending the $$$ to build an Interstate grade freeway from South Bend to Plymouth, through Kokomo and from SR 38 to I-465 if you aren't going to finish the job?

[I-55]

I was previously on the fence on this issue, but it's clear InDOT is taking the cheap way out here and I applaud the citizens for standing up. Make the whole corridor a fully access controlled freeway like you originally promised. Why did you even bother spending the $$$ to build an Interstate grade freeway from South Bend to Plymouth, through Kokomo and from SR 38 to I-465 if you aren't going to finish the job?

The only logic that I can see is that in order to make the whole corridor free flow like INDOT has said they want to they had to build those freeway segments. Kokomo and Carmel were already developed areas with multiple traffic lights, not to mention a freeway just for the sake of those areas individually was needed anyway. As for Plymouth-South Bend, with the free flow idea there were speed drops in La Paz and Lakeville on a surface street alignment with zero median or shoulders, and in order to make it a high speed route they needed a new alignment to avoid bulldozing half the town. I don't agree with the j-turn option, I've always stood behind the idea that 30 and 31 should be full freeways with interstate designations.

[NWI_Irish96]

I was previously on the fence on this issue, but it's clear InDOT is taking the cheap way out here and I applaud the citizens for standing up. Make the whole corridor a fully access controlled freeway like you originally promised. Why did you even bother spending the $$$ to build an Interstate grade freeway from South Bend to Plymouth, through Kokomo and from SR 38 to I-465 if you aren't going to finish the job?

The only logic that I can see is that in order to make the whole corridor free flow like INDOT has said they want to they had to build those freeway segments. Kokomo and Carmel were already developed areas with multiple traffic lights, not to mention a freeway just for the sake of those areas individually was needed anyway. As for Plymouth-South Bend, with the free flow idea there were speed drops in La Paz and Lakeville on a surface street alignment with zero median or shoulders, and in order to make it a high speed route they needed a new alignment to avoid bulldozing half the town. I don't agree with the j-turn option, I've always stood behind the idea that 30 and 31 should be full freeways with interstate designations.

I think 31 will eventually be full freeway, but it's not a priority right now. From the standpoint of safety and of improving travel times, getting the rest of 65 expanded to 6 lanes and upgrading sections of 30 are higher priorities. Having grown up in Marshall County and still having family in Elkhart County, I've driven 31 between Plymouth and Kokomo literally hundreds of times. Outside of Notre Dame game weekends, I've rarely encountered traffic volumes that cause slowdowns and/or dangerous situations.

Yes, it would be fantastic to have a full freeway and even an interstate designation, but really there are higher priorities right now.

[monty]

I used to commute to downtown Indy daily for work. Jump on US 31 at 6:30 AM and you'll find thick 70 mph traffic going both directions between Kokomo and Westfield. At 5:30 PM the traffic will be slower and with frequent jams.  If INDOT doesn't change their minds again, at least this segment will be upgraded to interstate standards over the next few years. I think that is the reasoning against J turns further north. The pace of the traffic doesn't change as you travel the entire corridor. Traffic counts are lighter between Kokomo and Plymouth and INDOT wants to engineer cheaper alternatives that  may work on paper but don't apply well to this case.

[I-39]

Yes, it would be fantastic to have a full freeway and even an interstate designation, but really there are higher priorities right now.

That's true. However, they shouldn't use that as an excuse to take the cheap way out between Plymouth and Kokomo.

[I-39]

I used to commute to downtown Indy daily for work. Jump on US 31 at 6:30 AM and you'll find thick 70 mph traffic going both directions between Kokomo and Westfield. At 5:30 PM the traffic will be slower and with frequent jams.  If INDOT doesn't change their minds again, at least this segment will be upgraded to interstate standards over the next few years. I think that is the reasoning against J turns further north. The pace of the traffic doesn't change as you travel the entire corridor. Traffic counts are lighter between Kokomo and Plymouth and INDOT wants to engineer cheaper alternatives that  may work on paper but don't apply well to this case.

Not only does the Kokomo-Indianapolis segment need to be full freeway, it may even need six lanes at some point.

[Life in Paradise]

IDOT outside of Indianapolis does not normally think of the long picture.  Examples:  the original bypass of Kokomo of US31, which has had to totally be redone, where it could have been limited access originally.  In Evansville there is an intersection of the Lloyd Expressway where people were asking prior to the construction that there be an overpass installed since it would be a major bottleneck in the near future.  This was prior to a lot of the intersection construction, and proper land could have been had at a good price.  They failed to do this (expressway created in mid 80s) and have reconstructed the intersection once, and have plans to do so with the new disconnected left turn idea, and still no overpass, which would have solve the problem.

[NWI_Irish96]

Yes, it would be fantastic to have a full freeway and even an interstate designation, but really there are higher priorities right now.

That's true. However, they shouldn't use that as an excuse to take the cheap way out between Plymouth and Kokomo.

I guess the question is, if the full freeway is 20+ years away, are the cheaper options worth having for that amount of time?

[I-39]

Yes, it would be fantastic to have a full freeway and even an interstate designation, but really there are higher priorities right now.

That's true. However, they shouldn't use that as an excuse to take the cheap way out between Plymouth and Kokomo.

I guess the question is, if the full freeway is 20+ years away, are the cheaper options worth having for that amount of time?

And the answer is no. Leave it as it is until you are ready to convert to full
interstate freeway. However, restrict any new access points in the interim.

[I-39]

This is a very incoherent statement by InDOT. Under the FAQ on the US 31 "Limited access"  project page they state the following.

4. Why can't right-in/right outs be constructed at intersections to allow partial access to county roads?

While construction of right-in and right-out intersections would be possible at select locations, one goal of the project is to convert to US 31 to a free-flow corridor. If right-in/right-out access was to be granted at county roads, US 31 would need to be upgraded to Freeway standards. This includes the construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes and would result in added cost and right-of-way impacts.  Converting US 31 to Freeway standards would cost an estimated four to five times more than the free-flow plan.  Additionally, overpasses will be needed to provide cross county connectivity. 

https://www.in.gov/indot/4051.htm

Um, unless there was a major redefinition of road terms that I missed, you are converting this section to freeway standards. Right in/out would be a free flow corridor, like you are doing with the J turns north of Kokomo. Are they desperately trying not to say they are making this section a freeway?

[The Ghostbuster]

US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend should be completely freeway, but not an Interstate.

[sparker]

US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend should be completely freeway, but not an Interstate.

Since the 1991 ISTEA, which introduced the high-priority corridor concept (with the option of Interstate designation) most states constructing full freeways are doing so to Interstate standards in any case; I'd assume INDOT would do likewise with US 31 (the completed portion from I-465 north to IN 38 as well as the Kokomo Bypass are constructed to those standards).  Of course, it would be up to the individual state to request an Interstate designation -- which is why the Congressional/legislated route is more often the methodology of choice to do so these days -- effectively a "unilateral" application of designation that bypasses the DOT/AASHTO process.  Of course, by doing it that way politics are injected into the process in a more direct fashion than the interagency slog method, but these days it's often the most efficient way to get a regional Interstate designated if not fully developed. 

INDOT won't likely "tank" a full freeway project in order to thwart political pressure toward an Interstate designation; their chosen methodology of record is simply to not even classify the facility as a full limited-access freeway, but as an upgrade of the current roadway (hence the J-turn push).  in all likelihood if a series of projects to upgrade US 31 to a full freeway along the full length of the corridor reaches fruition, they'll be done to Interstate standards.  Then it'll be up to INDOT to initiate the designation process if it so chooses -- or, more likely, a legislator from somewhere along the corridor will do so on his or her own at the federal level.   Bottom line -- if it's done as a freeway, it'll be to Interstate standards, and somewhere along the line one party or another will pursue an Interstate designation for the corridor.           

[silverback1065]

in a few yrs there will be no lights from 465 to SR 18. interchanges are planned at 236th, 276th, and division road. the rr tracks will get a bridge too in tipton co.

[Great Lakes Roads]

I am not that surprised that this happened... 

https://www.crossville-chronicle.com/news/tennessee_news/tipton-co-rejects-us-31-division-rd-interchange-plan/article_4878d7be-1fd7-5779-ae87-06a6225f19ba.html

[silverback1065]

I see their point in not wanting to take over 213. I think indot will end up paying for it eventually.

Pixel 5

[I-39]

I am not that surprised that this happened... 

https://www.crossville-chronicle.com/news/tennessee_news/tipton-co-rejects-us-31-division-rd-interchange-plan/article_4878d7be-1fd7-5779-ae87-06a6225f19ba.html

And here they still aren't referring to this segment as a freeway. I don't get it.

[sparker]

I am not that surprised that this happened... 

https://www.crossville-chronicle.com/news/tennessee_news/tipton-co-rejects-us-31-division-rd-interchange-plan/article_4878d7be-1fd7-5779-ae87-06a6225f19ba.html

And here they still aren't referring to this segment as a freeway. I don't get it.

It's pretty simple, really -- INDOT doesn't want to publicly commit to full-"freewayization" of US 31 from Indy to Kokomo, at least in the near term.  Within their own ranks, it's probably been decided that eventually it'll be all freeway, but even hinting as to when that'll occur isn't in the cards right now for any number of reasons fiscal and even political.  Although a sizeable portion of the route has already been raised to freeway standards, these days publicly stating that long-range freeway plans are forthcoming often results in pointed criticism from some quarters (usually the usual suspect in that regard such as die-hard urbanists and their supporters) or, alternately, continued pressure from those who benefit from deployment of new freeways; more often than not local residents.  Thus more than a few DOT's keep the addition of freeway miles largely  "on the down low", deploying a mile or two here and there until a full new facility is up & running.

An educated guess -- INDOT's preference would have been the "midwest corridor" concept -- freeway bypasses of the major towns along route along with deployment of interchanges at major intersecting routes, with controlled-access expressway for as much of the remainder of the route could be deployed, but tolerating private access if such was longstanding, the usual result of route "twinning".  However, both internal policy differences -- which "roller-coaster" between support for a full freeway between Indy and South Bend and the abject realization that there's little in the way of funds to support such a concept -- and today's political atmosphere have rendered such plans DOA.  Since the whole corridor was built out to 4 lanes, but with the retention of full private access along much of the length, any upgrades will come at some cost of continued good will between INDOT and the public arena along the corridor.   Private homes and farms along the route will at some point be inconvenienced by said upgrades, even if simply limited to access to one's side of the road via RIRO's and/or median barriers.  The "J-turn" concept was an attempt by INDOT to effectively "have it all" with minimal expense of both construction funds and public good will -- but it backfired; the locals saw the attempt to technically maintain US 31 traffic as "free flowing" but with a high level of inconvenience to cross-traffic from intersecting highways and roads.   

At this point it appears that the local residents have come to the realization that a full freeway, with all the by-products of somewhat lessened immediate access to parties immediately along the original route, is likely to be the final outcome, so they're in favor of INDOT building out to this standard ASAP -- but the agency just lacks the funds to do so near-term, positing "stop-gap" measures such as the aforementioned J-turns for safety purposes.  But when confronted with this local push-back, the agency, lacking a cohesive "plan B", proposes interim measures within its budgetary guidelines, resulting in even more negative local reaction.  I for one suspect that eventually INDOT will commence planning to elevate the entire route to a full freeway, likely Interstate-grade, but at a decidedly leisurely pace that reflects financial limitations.