More US 31 upgrades between Indy and South Bend

[Terry Shea]

A Continuous Green T intersection design at a 3-way intersection allows one direction of traffic to keep moving without hitting a traffic signal.

It looks to me like that would be throwing a significant amount of money at a so called solution that does absolutely nothing!

[MrManlet]

A Continuous Green T intersection design at a 3-way intersection allows one direction of traffic to keep moving without hitting a traffic signal.

It looks to me like that would be throwing a significant amount of money at a so called solution that does absolutely nothing!

I agree that this would probably be a waste because I don't think the VPD counts would justify it. The northern 218 intersection is a traffic signal while the southern intersection is served by just flashers. Looking at the Google maps of the northern intersection, it looks like at most 5 cars queue up at the light from EB 218 onto 31. If anything, they should just put turn lanes for the light.

A side note, the left turn lane from SB 31 at the same intersection really should be a U-turn lane as it just goes to an abandoned house.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6776542,-86.129297,439m/data=!3m1!1e3

[monty]

Most of the accidents at the north 218 stoplight happen as rear-ends on SB US 31 traffic stacks up on the red light. This Green T won't likely improve that scenario. There is a bridge on 31 just on to the north that also makes improvements to the intersection challenging.

[MrManlet]

Most of the accidents at the north 218 stoplight happen as rear-ends on SB US 31 traffic stacks up on the red light. This Green T won't likely improve that scenario. There is a bridge on 31 just on to the north that also makes improvements to the intersection challenging.

Maybe they should downgrade the intersection to flashers like the south 218 intersection. Then again there is the Air Force base right there.

[monty]

Miami County fights back against J turns: https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/miami-co-takes-last-stand-against-j-turns-on-us-31/article_93986430-c2db-11ea-9585-8f6463509045.html

[silverback1065]

Miami County fights back against J turns: https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/miami-co-takes-last-stand-against-j-turns-on-us-31/article_93986430-c2db-11ea-9585-8f6463509045.html

I support this, make it a freeway already!

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm not well-versed on the costs of different types of projects so maybe this doesn't save money, but here's an idea:

Reroute 218W from a point 1.2 miles west of US 31, WSW along the path of the utility line, then jogging more SW between the golf course and the air museum to connect to Hoosier Blvd.

Reroute 218E from a point 0.3 miles east of US 31, N and then NW to connect to US 31 at the same point.

Have a single interchange that covers both directions of 218 and the former air base. Turn both current alignments of 218 into cul-de-sacs.

It's a little over a mile of new terrain road, but no residential properties would need to be acquired.

[silverback1065]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

[Terry Shea]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

[silverback1065]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

[Terry Shea]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

So what's the difference other than no signal?

[silverback1065]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

So what's the difference other than no signal?

i think that's the only one, other than the cross street isn't allowed to go straight through. here is on in morocco indiana https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9407834,-87.4351341,3a,75y,302.45h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHu8rv26jw0yY4p7B2RgCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
they occasionally have flashers.

[ibthebigd]

The US 231 from I-64 to the Ohio river seams to flow well hopefully US 31 will flow that well

SM-G950U

[Terry Shea]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

So what's the difference other than no signal?

i think that's the only one, other than the cross street isn't allowed to go straight through. here is on in morocco indiana https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9407834,-87.4351341,3a,75y,302.45h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHu8rv26jw0yY4p7B2RgCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
they occasionally have flashers.

Well that's why I'm asking how this will work without signals.  You're going to have traffic stopping or slowing down to a crawl before pulling out into traffic going 60-70 mph or more.  Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[silverback1065]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

So what's the difference other than no signal?

i think that's the only one, other than the cross street isn't allowed to go straight through. here is on in morocco indiana https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9407834,-87.4351341,3a,75y,302.45h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHu8rv26jw0yY4p7B2RgCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
they occasionally have flashers.

Well that's why I'm asking how this will work without signals.  You're going to have traffic stopping or slowing down to a crawl before pulling out into traffic going 60-70 mph or more.  Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

No the cross streets won't be going that fast. They will make a right turn and immediately merge into the uturn lane. They don't have to drive in the mainline. these are only installed on very low volume roads (referring to the cross street)

[Terry Shea]

That article makes a lot of unproven claims a lot of people against it are saying "these don't work here because of the speeds" do they understand that is literally one of the first things considered when something like this is proposed? they're saying that because it sounds plausible. what they should just say is "i don't want them because i prefer an interchange like you originally proposed" safety is indot's top priority and there's 0 chance this wasn't considered when they proposed j-turns.

If the purpose is to eliminate traffic signals then I don't understand what good J-turns are going to do.  Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what a J-turn is, but it appears to be similar to a Michigan left.  We have them all over this area and they certainly do not eliminate the need for traffic signals-in fact it requires 3 signals at almost every intersection now instead of 1.

These aren't like Michigan lefts, these have no signals at all.

So what's the difference other than no signal?

i think that's the only one, other than the cross street isn't allowed to go straight through. here is on in morocco indiana https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9407834,-87.4351341,3a,75y,302.45h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHu8rv26jw0yY4p7B2RgCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
they occasionally have flashers.

Well that's why I'm asking how this will work without signals.  You're going to have traffic stopping or slowing down to a crawl before pulling out into traffic going 60-70 mph or more.  Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

No the cross streets won't be going that fast. They will make a right turn and immediately merge into the uturn lane. They don't have to drive in the mainline

They're going to have to make a right turn, immediately cross 2 lanes of traffic to get to the j, stop or slow to a crawl, and then pull out into speeding traffic.  I think an obstacle course with land mines would be better than this.

[silverback1065]

Not really you need to drive one, they're not that bad. These have the same hate as roundabouts and eventually people got used to them. This is better than trying to cross traditionally. No right angle collisions.

[sparker]

Not really you need to drive one, they're not that bad. These have the same hate as roundabouts and eventually people got used to them. This is better than trying to cross traditionally. No right angle collisions.

Having encountered "Jersey turns" early in my travels ('80's) and finding them a real PITA (US 22 in the Dunellen area especially noxious), particularly with bunched traffic, I'm just wondering what, except to claim traffic-signal elimination while saving bucks at the same time, is the attraction here?  Since INDOT has long professed that they have always wanted to deploy a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, why not simply do what DOT's have historically done in fiscally tight times and do full-freeway segments a little bit at a time until the whole thing has been upgraded?  What is the "audience" INDOT is trying to placate by eliminating actual signals and installing intersection convolutions as, obviously, an interim measure?  Since it's the locals who are raising hell about this, certainly not them!  It seems that the agency is attempting to show, within their monetary limitations, that they are "doing something" about the problem -- but in doing so, may be making matters worse just to say they've dealt with/eliminated one single parameter (full-stop signals).  It seems everyone involved would be better served by INDOT's simply maintaining the status quo until such time as a finalized freeway project in the affected area can be afforded -- i.e., save their money until there's enough to do it right! 

[silverback1065]

Not really you need to drive one, they're not that bad. These have the same hate as roundabouts and eventually people got used to them. This is better than trying to cross traditionally. No right angle collisions.

Having encountered "Jersey turns" early in my travels ('80's) and finding them a real PITA (US 22 in the Dunellen area especially noxious), particularly with bunched traffic, I'm just wondering what, except to claim traffic-signal elimination while saving bucks at the same time, is the attraction here?  Since INDOT has long professed that they have always wanted to deploy a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, why not simply do what DOT's have historically done in fiscally tight times and do full-freeway segments a little bit at a time until the whole thing has been upgraded?  What is the "audience" INDOT is trying to placate by eliminating actual signals and installing intersection convolutions as, obviously, an interim measure?  Since it's the locals who are raising hell about this, certainly not them!  It seems that the agency is attempting to show, within their monetary limitations, that they are "doing something" about the problem -- but in doing so, may be making matters worse just to say they've dealt with/eliminated one single parameter (full-stop signals).  It seems everyone involved would be better served by INDOT's simply maintaining the status quo until such time as a finalized freeway project in the affected area can be afforded -- i.e., save their money until there's enough to do it right!

I agree, the jturns here are stupid. Give us a full freeway!

[Life in Paradise]

Not really you need to drive one, they're not that bad. These have the same hate as roundabouts and eventually people got used to them. This is better than trying to cross traditionally. No right angle collisions.

Having encountered "Jersey turns" early in my travels ('80's) and finding them a real PITA (US 22 in the Dunellen area especially noxious), particularly with bunched traffic, I'm just wondering what, except to claim traffic-signal elimination while saving bucks at the same time, is the attraction here?  Since INDOT has long professed that they have always wanted to deploy a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, why not simply do what DOT's have historically done in fiscally tight times and do full-freeway segments a little bit at a time until the whole thing has been upgraded?  What is the "audience" INDOT is trying to placate by eliminating actual signals and installing intersection convolutions as, obviously, an interim measure?  Since it's the locals who are raising hell about this, certainly not them!  It seems that the agency is attempting to show, within their monetary limitations, that they are "doing something" about the problem -- but in doing so, may be making matters worse just to say they've dealt with/eliminated one single parameter (full-stop signals).  It seems everyone involved would be better served by INDOT's simply maintaining the status quo until such time as a finalized freeway project in the affected area can be afforded -- i.e., save their money until there's enough to do it right!

INDOT simply needs to study US67 history running NW of Little Rock, AR

[sparker]

Not really you need to drive one, they're not that bad. These have the same hate as roundabouts and eventually people got used to them. This is better than trying to cross traditionally. No right angle collisions.

Having encountered "Jersey turns" early in my travels ('80's) and finding them a real PITA (US 22 in the Dunellen area especially noxious), particularly with bunched traffic, I'm just wondering what, except to claim traffic-signal elimination while saving bucks at the same time, is the attraction here?  Since INDOT has long professed that they have always wanted to deploy a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, why not simply do what DOT's have historically done in fiscally tight times and do full-freeway segments a little bit at a time until the whole thing has been upgraded?  What is the "audience" INDOT is trying to placate by eliminating actual signals and installing intersection convolutions as, obviously, an interim measure?  Since it's the locals who are raising hell about this, certainly not them!  It seems that the agency is attempting to show, within their monetary limitations, that they are "doing something" about the problem -- but in doing so, may be making matters worse just to say they've dealt with/eliminated one single parameter (full-stop signals).  It seems everyone involved would be better served by INDOT's simply maintaining the status quo until such time as a finalized freeway project in the affected area can be afforded -- i.e., save their money until there's enough to do it right!

INDOT simply needs to study US67 history running NW of Little Rock, AR

Or, equally to the point the history of US/CA 99 in the San Joaquin Valley.  From the first freeway miles circa 1952-53 to the full completion of the south Merced County segment in 2017, it took 60+ years to get the job done (at least, technically, as a full freeway), and it will likely take another 20-25 to bring it up to Interstate standards as per Caltrans' "master plan" for the route.   With the progress north of Indy, Plymouth-South Bend, and the Kokomo bypass INDOT has, percentage-wise, accomplished more in that regard in the past 10 years than CA's DOH was able to do in the same amount of time (and the corridor is less than half the length of the CA one).  There were grade crossings on the southern half of 99 and property incursions between Fresno and Modesto until the '80's; it took time, but all that was eventually addressed -- even with the agency's roadbuilding function effectively truncated or furloughed from '75 to '83.  But the CA corridor serves as an indicator of what can be done with an incremental approach -- and with a notable lack of "band-aid" interim measures -- it went directly from a 2-lane rural arterial to expressway and/or freeway, eventually fully evolving into the latter.       

[PurdueBill]

INDOT has a J-turn thing lately.  They redid US 30/SR 101 as one, and the intersection just west of US 421/SR 18 on SR 25 near Delphi was redone as one as well.  Both roads posted for 60 with traffic that moves at least that fast (which probably should have a posted limit of 65; in Ohio the limit may possibly be posted 70 but probably would be 65).  Wonder why the fascination with the J-turns lately?

[sprjus4]

INDOT has a J-turn thing lately.  They redid US 30/SR 101 as one, and the intersection just west of US 421/SR 18 on SR 25 near Delphi was redone as one as well.  Both roads posted for 60 with traffic that moves at least that fast (which probably should have a posted limit of 65; in Ohio the limit may possibly be posted 70 but probably would be 65).  Wonder why the fascination with the J-turns lately?

US-30 is posted at 70 mph in Ohio beginning at the Indiana state line. It suddenly drops to 60 mph due to different laws.

[sparker]

INDOT has a J-turn thing lately.  They redid US 30/SR 101 as one, and the intersection just west of US 421/SR 18 on SR 25 near Delphi was redone as one as well.  Both roads posted for 60 with traffic that moves at least that fast (which probably should have a posted limit of 65; in Ohio the limit may possibly be posted 70 but probably would be 65).  Wonder why the fascination with the J-turns lately?

Fascination with specific methodology (J-turns, roundabouts, etc.) seems to be a recurring institutional response to demands (political, publicly stated, or even simply perceived) to "do something" about a situation when funds to effect a response are limited.  Call it "cheaping out" or "band-aid" if you will, it's pretty endemic and certainly not limited to one state's transporation agency.   In this particular case, the push for J-turns seems to be internally driven -- apparently there's an agency directive and/or governing policy to make US 31 "free flowing" -- i.e. eliminating signals, but without the available funding to effect the full freeway that's long been an agency as well a publicly stated state goal.  So the "band-aids" are continuously being applied -- or the plans to do so are run up the flagpole.  At this point it appears that between Indy and Kokomo there was enough blowback to forestall the J-turn concept; property acquisition of the type preceding freeway development is underway.  But between Kokomo and the Wabash River the task at hand appears to be something more daunting -- much more private access and side roads with which to deal -- so to satisfy the internal "free-flowing" signal-free goal, less costly measures such as J-turns continue to be formally planned.   Thus when installed and in operation, the agency can claim that their basic goals were met -- regardless of the efficacy of the facility.  But I'll reiterate what I said earlier here -- where is the pressure to deploy these half-measures coming from? -- especially since the objections seem to be emanating from the affected area!  If internal within INDOT, then any blame for consequences can be directed there; if there's some external pressure, that needs to be identified to determine the motivation.  Either way, it seems pointless to expend scarce funds to technically shift metrics rather than simply stage real improvements (one interchange at a time if necessary) until the job is finished. 

[Great Lakes Roads]

Here is the project page for the Miami County section of U.S. 31: https://www.in.gov/indot/4003.htm

Two new interchanges (SR 18 and Business 31) will be constructed along with six intersection improvements (CR 800 S, CR 850 S, SR 218 N Junction, SR 218 S Junction, CR 100 N, and SR 16).