Portion between Indy and Evansville currently ahead of schedule http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/jul/10/i-69-exceeding-speed-limit/ (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/jul/10/i-69-exceeding-speed-limit/) EDIT: Found better article about I-69 overall in this section
[Added post icon. -S.]
And you can see some of the photos in my Indy meet set. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/sets/72157621204721626/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/sets/72157621204721626/)
Specifically, the 12th through 21st photos in that set highlight the portion now under construction, which is from I-64 to SR 68. It's going to be quite some time before they'll construct from there north, however. I'm going to have to go through and geotag them at some point. They're aiming for a July 2010 opening for just that section, and judging by the progress, they just might make it.
Wow, this is great. I've always thought we needed more Interstate routes in the east even if they don't travel through big cities. If we had more rural routes, the whole South wouldn't have to travel through Atlanta (lots of congestion) to get to Florida, the Northeast, westerly, etc. Also, this will help to open up new markets to the rest of the country like Bloomington, Washington, etc. in SW Indiana.
One route I really really would love to see would be Mobile-Meridian-Tupelo-Jackson(TN), and ending at I-55 via I-155.
The FHWA approved construction of the segment from US-50 east of Washington to US-231 outside of Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100203/LOCAL/100203050/Feds-OK-next-section-of-I-69-extension). Work on the three overpasses should begin in April, with paving expected to start sometime this summer. I offer an entry on this development (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/02/fhwa-approves-next-segment-of-i-69.html) on Adam Prince's blog.
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/SM2010,%20IN%20I-69.pdf
QuoteINDOT respectfully requests the designation of Proposed Route (PR) 69 from I-64 to US 231 as Interstate Route 69. The 1.77 mile segment of PR-69 from I-64 to SR68 is already open to traffic and the remaining 65.3 miles of PR-69 from SR 69 to US 231 is anticipated to be complete in October of 2012.
Date facility available to traffic September 2009 (from I-64 to SR 68) October 2012 (From SR 68 to US231)
^^
It's good to see the freeway being built, but I do have a couple of questions.
1. How does this fit into INDOT's existing mileage cap of 12,000 miles?
2. Why I-69 and not I-63? I-63 would be a better fit and keeps the grid intact instead of making a joke of it. This is where the US highways failed, IMHO, when everyone and his brother and sister wanted extensions everywhere that failed to fit in the original idea of what they were supposed to be. We risk doing the exact same thing with the Interstates.
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
^^
It's good to see the freeway being built, but I do have a couple of questions.
1. How does this fit into INDOT's existing mileage cap of 12,000 miles?
2. Why I-69 and not I-63? I-63 would be a better fit and keeps the grid intact instead of making a joke of it. This is where the US highways failed, IMHO, when everyone and his brother and sister wanted extensions everywhere that failed to fit in the original idea of what they were supposed to be. We risk doing the exact same thing with the Interstates.
It is my sense that it is 'I-69' in that it is a logical continuation of an existing route number.
Mike
Quote from: Brandon2. Why I-69 and not I-63? I-63 would be a better fit and keeps the grid intact instead of making a joke of it. This is where the US highways failed, IMHO, when everyone and his brother and sister wanted extensions everywhere that failed to fit in the original idea of what they were supposed to be. We risk doing the exact same thing with the Interstates.
I'd say the number is being kept the same for route continuity as part of the NAFTA route intention. Also, I don't think Indy is the best spot to have the route change numbers; Memphis would be better, being where the route appears to become more E-W than N-S, and also at where the I-69 corridor may meet a future spur route to Texarkana along US 59.
As for the interstate grid violations becoming as bad as those in the US route system, we're already there, thanks to I-74 in NC, I-99, and likely in the future with I-39 and I-43 probably becoming east of an odd I-5x or I-4x. Of course, had the trend been as bad years ago, I-81 and I-59 would share the same number (one of the early number schemes posted elsewhere on this forum did have both routes as I-77 IIRC).
The people in Congress don't really care about the grid anymore; that's why we have all these 4xx US Routes now. Besides our congressman probably think drivers should know the difference between an interstate shield and a US highway shield by now. I think when it's all said and done, I-69 will be an interstate version of US 62.
Quote from: lamsalfl on July 23, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
Wow, this is great. I've always thought we needed more Interstate routes in the east even if they don't travel through big cities. If we had more rural routes, the whole South wouldn't have to travel through Atlanta (lots of congestion) to get to Florida, the Northeast, westerly, etc. Also, this will help to open up new markets to the rest of the country like Bloomington, Washington, etc. in SW Indiana.
One route I really really would love to see would be Mobile-Meridian-Tupelo-Jackson(TN), and ending at I-55 via I-155.
Why not extend it to Kansas City? There's no good NW to SE route in Missouri.
QuoteINDOT respectfully requests the designation of Proposed Route (PR) 69 from I-64 to US 231 as Interstate Route 69. The 1.77 mile segment of PR-69 from I-64 to SR68 is already open to traffic and the remaining 65.3 miles of PR-69 from SR 69 to US 231 is anticipated to be complete in October of 2012.
Date facility available to traffic September 2009 (from I-64 to SR 68) October 2012 (From SR 68 to US231)
does this mean they will sign the completed segment as I-69 relatively soon? And what of the future segment; will that get Future shields?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 15, 2010, 08:27:02 PM
QuoteINDOT respectfully requests the designation of Proposed Route (PR) 69 from I-64 to US 231 as Interstate Route 69. The 1.77 mile segment of PR-69 from I-64 to SR68 is already open to traffic and the remaining 65.3 miles of PR-69 from SR 69 to US 231 is anticipated to be complete in October of 2012.
Date facility available to traffic September 2009 (from I-64 to SR 68) October 2012 (From SR 68 to US231)
does this mean they will sign the completed segment as I-69 relatively soon? And what of the future segment; will that get Future shields?
The already open segment is already posted as I-69:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1726.msg51136#msg51136
Design-build specimen plans for the "future" section (InDOT contract nos. 33047 and 33049) are already available and the signing plans call for I-69 shields--no "FUTURE" nonsense.
Anyone know of anything definitive regarding turning US 51 north of Dyersburg, TN, into a freeway
Quote from: sammack on April 17, 2010, 05:57:23 PM
Anyone know of anything definitive regarding turning US 51 north of Dyersburg, TN, into a freeway
There's this map at http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/I69/segment7/map.htm
and a link to the "final" environmental impact statement from 2002.
The overall page for I-69 in Tennessee is at http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/default.htm
As ODOT has proven with US 377, even if AASHTO explicitly declines your request several times, there is nothing to stop a state DOT from signing a highway.
Gov. Daniels is accelerating the timeline for construction, and vows the part from Evansville to Bloomington will be open by 2014 (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100519/LOCAL/100519016/Daniels-vows-I-69-from-Evansville-to-Bloomington-to-open-in-2014).
Quote from: rawmustard on May 19, 2010, 02:47:43 PM
Gov. Daniels is accelerating the timeline for construction, and vows the part from Evansville to Bloomington will be open by 2014 (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100519/LOCAL/100519016/Daniels-vows-I-69-from-Evansville-to-Bloomington-to-open-in-2014).
Too bad we can't get him to run for governor in Michigan. Maybe we can get Indiana to annex Michigan. :)
Drove it yesterday completed to one exit North of I-64 and under major construction as far as the eye can see from there.
Quote from: rawmustard on May 19, 2010, 02:47:43 PM
Gov. Daniels is accelerating the timeline for construction, and vows the part from Evansville to Bloomington will be open by 2014 (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100519/LOCAL/100519016/Daniels-vows-I-69-from-Evansville-to-Bloomington-to-open-in-2014).
Bloomington, really! I've seen plans up to Crane and I've seen some of the plans for the corridor up to Bloomington, but I didn't know they were actually going to build that stretch, I guess I'll see more about that in the coming years. Competing the road to Bloomington at SR 37 will effectively complete the corridor, at least the route will be there.
I'll be impressed if I-69 actually manages to connect to IN 37 near Bloomington, given the opposition from the city. I would not be surprised to see that section end up in the courts again.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 12:21:26 AM
As ODOT has proven with US 377, even if AASHTO explicitly declines your request several times, there is nothing to stop a state DOT from signing a highway.
I wonder why AASHTO was so hell-bent on denying that route? And if ODOT were to request it again, would AASHTO approve it because it's already signed?
Here are links to photos re recent I-69 construction in yesterday's Evansville Courier & Press article about I-69 (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/05/unfinished-history-authors-look-at-the-last-puts/):
http://www.courierpress.com/photos/2010/sep/03/67418/
http://www.courierpress.com/photos/2010/sep/03/67417/
http://www.courierpress.com/photos/2010/sep/03/67419/
http://www.courierpress.com/photos/2010/sep/03/67416/
Quote from: tdindy88 on May 19, 2010, 05:45:55 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on May 19, 2010, 02:47:43 PM
Gov. Daniels is accelerating the timeline for construction, and vows the part from Evansville to Bloomington will be open by 2014 (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100519/LOCAL/100519016/Daniels-vows-I-69-from-Evansville-to-Bloomington-to-open-in-2014).
Bloomington, really! I've seen plans up to Crane and I've seen some of the plans for the corridor up to Bloomington, but I didn't know they were actually going to build that stretch, I guess I'll see more about that in the coming years. Competing the road to Bloomington at SR 37 will effectively complete the corridor, at least the route will be there.
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 21, 2010, 12:17:18 AM
I'll be impressed if I-69 actually manages to connect to IN 37 near Bloomington, given the opposition from the city. I would not be surprised to see that section end up in the courts again.
Feds provide 30-day extension for comment period (to Oct. 28) re Crane to Bloomington section. Should be a fierce war of commentary:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ef686b0be49948b58c6aef49a767aaf5/IN--Interstate_69/
Quote
The 27-mile section runs northeastward from Crane to Bloomington. Gov. Mitch Daniels has predicted construction on that section could begin by next summer, but the area also is home to some of the project's fiercest opponents. Dozens of people spoke against it during a public hearing last month.
The draft study can be found at libraries in the area and at the I-69 project website at http://www.i69indyevn.org.
I think some money should be saved by reducing the number of overpasses in this area. Ok maybe it might be aimed at some of the whiners as a cheap shot. Tired of these guys whining and then in a few years they will be driving on I-69 with their anti-I-69 bumper stickers. Yes I understand some people will lose property but it's part of moving forward as a state and they are being compensated for their property.
This question just came up on another thread. Should I-69 be extended to I-70/65 intersection in downtown Indianapolis?
http://www.ibj.com/newstalk/2010/05/28/should-interstate-69-be-extended-to-downtown-indianapolis/PARAMS/post/20236
Quote
But in Indianapolis, a ghost of the original plan remains: The extension of Interstate 69 all the way downtown from I-465 on the northeast side.
Is it time to reconsider the project? A better road would alleviate lots of congestion and cut the time needed to drive from Fishers to downtown by about half.
Even though it was never completed, much of the groundwork is laid. Four-lane Binford Boulevard angles toward downtown from I-465 but stops at Fall Creek Parkway. Now, look at Google Maps carefully and you'll notice a tiny spur extending toward Fall Creek from the north interchange of I-70 and I-65 downtown.
Could the northern interchange and Binford be linked at a reasonable price? ...
(May 28, 2010 Indianapolis Business Journal).
^ Depends on the definition of reasonable. The bike trail along the existing railroad line running north from the northern I-65/I-70 interchange would really complicate any EIS with 4f concerns. A few streetview images also indicate possible environmental justice issues that could kill any major project today.
Best improvement that could likely be done would be a new high capacity surface arterial from the northern I-65/70 interchange that would somehow connect to Binford Boulevard.
First of all, from the North Split to Binford is dead, this was the only stretch of highway in Indianapolis that was fought and won by community activists. If it's hard to get the project started in rural Indiana it will be impossible to get it going through the city, 465 will be used as the route for 69 through the city. However, I have wondered, if I-69 were extended north toward I-70 from Martinsville, instead of following SR 37 north to 465, like I've heard some people talk about, then 69 could multiplex with I-70 through the city and thus through downtown, bringing in the third interstate. Then, on the eastside it could follow I-465 north to the current end of I-69.
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 26, 2010, 10:38:40 AM
First of all, from the North Split to Binford is dead, this was the only stretch of highway in Indianapolis that was fought and won by community activists.
Years ago, community activists in Shreveport stopped the I-20 to I-220 "gap" for I-49 (the Inner-City Connector). As the years have passed, the community has had a change of heart and is now cooperating with Shreveport's greater government in trying to get the Inner-City Connector built.
I have no knowledge of communities in Indy. How has passage of time treated the community around the North Split to Binford corridor? IOW, is there any chance the community would have a change of heart?
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 26, 2010, 10:38:40 AM
First of all, from the North Split to Binford is dead, this was the only stretch of highway in Indianapolis that was fought and won by community activists. If it's hard to get the project started in rural Indiana it will be impossible to get it going through the city, 465 will be used as the route for 69 through the city. However, I have wondered, if I-69 were extended north toward I-70 from Martinsville, instead of following SR 37 north to 465, like I've heard some people talk about, then 69 could multiplex with I-70 through the city and thus through downtown, bringing in the third interstate. Then, on the eastside it could follow I-465 north to the current end of I-69.
How many generations have passed since then and how has the overall situation in that area changed (better or worse)? These days, 'context-sensitive design' is S.O.P. in new and substantially rebuilt urban freeways - a 'do it right' thing to help everything fit in - something not practiced two and three generations ago. The first instance of 'context-sensitive design' that I recall seeing was when I-35E and I-94 were rebuilt through downtown Saint Paul, MN and I-35 was extended through downtown Duluth, MN, both in the late 1980s (over a generation ago). I do agree, times change and I sense that the majority of the people living in those areas now have no memory of those 1960s and 1970s 'freeway wars' - they weren't born yet and most of those who did the fighting are now no longer with us.
Also, the significance of that example regarding I-49 in Shreveport, LA cannot be overstated, IMHO.
Mike
Extending I-69 south to Downtown can be as "context sensitive" as can be, but it would still involve leveling houses and dividing neighborhoods. Even though I live in Indy I'm not terribly familiar with the neighborhoods in question. But if there's any community there, I can't see how building a highway through it would do anything but destroy it.
I-65 made a ghetto out of blocks and blocks of neighborhoods on the near Northwestside. These were solid middle-class homes before. Now -- well, it's not someplace I would dream of driving into.
jim
Quote from: mobilene on September 26, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
Extending I-69 south to Downtown can be as "context sensitive" as can be, but it would still involve leveling houses and dividing neighborhoods ... But if there's any community there, I can't see how building a highway through it would do anything but destroy it.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 25, 2010, 11:11:07 PM
I have also very closely followed that corridor on Indianapolis' northeast side on the air photos and Streetview and it does look like it should not be all that hard to complete that part of I-69 - most of the ROW is clear and yes, that boulevard looks to be easily upgradable and the rest not hard to acquire and clear.
mgk920 quote from "20 years later" thread on GHT.
When I originally "pasted" the blog from the Indy Business Journal, I omitted the following:
Quote
A route from the northern interchange to Binford could easily pass through a series of brownfields and neighborhoods that probably never will attract urban pioneers like the Old Northside did. The drawbacks would be significant. An interstate might torpedo plans for mass transit. Cars and trucks would howl past Martindale Brightwood and Fall Creek Place. Sprawl might get another shot in the arm. What are your thoughts?
The comment about the area not even being attractive to urban pioneers made me suspect that time has not been kind to the area, and that the area's current generation of leaders could conceivably reach the same conclusion as have the community leaders in Shreveport.
OTOH, the comments about Martindale Brightwood and Fall Creek Place suggest a negative impact on areas in better shape.
A major distinction between Indy and Shreveport is that the ROW has basically already been acquired.
In Illinois the area of the proposed Crosstown Expressway (IL 50 Cicero Ave) Went downhill and the Tollway Corridors boomed so much that Chicago has looked into making a new truckway/busway along RR ROW in the old corridor. Its the only way in could be funded these days / Perhaps the I69 corrdor could be rivived in a similar fashion
Section 2 and Section 3 projects recently awarded, with combined total worth of approximately $100 million:
Quote
Two more bids have been awarded on the Interstate 69 project, ensuring that construction will be under way on the first three sections of I-69 by the end of the year.
Fred Weber, Inc., of Maryland Heights, Mo., was the low bidder at $83.9 million for the final two segments of Section 3 in Daviess and Greene counties. Force Construction Company, Inc., of Columbus, Ind., was awarded a $14.9 million contract to construct bridges over the East Fork of the White River in Pike County, the initial project for Section 2.
Section 2 extends from Indiana 64 in Oakland City to north of Indiana 50 in Washington. Indiana Department of Transportation officials said contracts for road construction in Section 2 will be awarded beginning next month through January." (Sept. 29, 2010 Evansville Courier & Press).
(http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/29/more-bids-are-awarded-construction-interstate-69/)
First of all, from the North Split to Binford is dead, this was the only stretch of highway in Indianapolis that was fought and won by community activists.
The community won the fight saying the road would ruin the area. Now, thirty plus years later, the area is ruined, full of abandoned houses, and the ones that are left are crack houses, brothels, and opium dens, as well as gambling holes. The area would have been far better off had I 69 come in as was originally planned.
From what I can gather, it looks like INDOT played hardball with Bloomington MPO by stating that they would use local funds (at expense of other local projects) to build Bloomington section of I-69 if MPO voted "no" on I-69 (my understanding is that federal funds only become available if a MPO signs off on an interstate segment). Mayor Kruzan, a long-time opponent of I-69 and a crucial swing vote, voted "yes": http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=78534
Quote
Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan, who has been opposed to Interstate 69 construction since before he was elected in 2003, made what he called a "reluctant" vote in favor of an amendment that would allow federal funding to be used to construct a section of I-69 that would run through Bloomington.
On Nov. 5, a battle about proposed I-69 construction through Bloomington and Monroe County ended at the City Council Chambers of Bloomington City Hall.
At a Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting, a representative from the Indiana Department of Transportation stated if the Transportation Improvement Program Amendment was not passed, INDOT would use local transportation funds – which would have been used for local projects – to build Section 4 of I-69.
With a 9-4 vote in favor of the TIP Amendment, the Bloomington/Monroe County
MPO will allow INDOT to use federal funding to construct Section 4 of I-69.
Kruzan was one of those nine votes.
"MPO funds will either be used to build I-69 or for local transportation projects," Kruzan said, attempting to explain his vote to the crowd at the MPO meeting.
Kruzan was unavailable for further comment ...
Here is a link to INDOT's web page on Section 4: http://www.i69indyevn.org/section4.html
I would still toll I-69 thru Bloomington.
Quote from: ShawnP on November 27, 2010, 03:29:14 PM
I would still toll I-69 thru Bloomington.
Good luck with that, because IIRC you can't toll an Interstate Highway.
If you can't toll you can remove exits from them. After Bloomington doesn't want it then bam no exits.
Quote from: The Premier on November 28, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
Good luck with that, because IIRC you can't toll an Interstate Highway.
They're planning to toll the missing segment of I-265 between Indiana and Kentucky.
QuoteGood luck with that, because IIRC you can't toll an Interstate Highway.
Not entirely true. There's still one pilot slot available for a state to set tolls on an existing Interstate (the slot PA was rejected for with I-80). And toll roads which were not built with Federal highway money can be added to the Interstate system as non-chargeable Interstates...I-88 IL, I-355 IL, and I-476 PA all being examples.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2010, 10:03:20 PM
Quote from: The Premier on November 28, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
Good luck with that, because IIRC you can't toll an Interstate Highway.
They're planning to toll the missing segment of I-265 between Indiana and Kentucky.
Isn't that more simply the case of building a toll bridge to begin with? i.e. while something like I-80 on the Bay Bridge was grandfathered into the system, the Verezzano Narrows Bridge was built as I-278 IIRC.
Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2010, 10:31:55 PMAnd toll roads which were not built with Federal highway money can be added to the Interstate system as non-chargeable Interstates...I-88 IL, I-355 IL, and I-476 PA all being examples.
Don't toll roads built before or during the early days of Interstate construction count as chargeable Interstates, at least for purposes of IM funding? I am thinking of roads like the former DFW Turnpike (now part of I-30) and Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (now part of I-95), both of which--as far as I know--are eligible for IM money.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2010, 04:29:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2010, 10:31:55 PMAnd toll roads which were not built with Federal highway money can be added to the Interstate system as non-chargeable Interstates...I-88 IL, I-355 IL, and I-476 PA all being examples.
Don't toll roads built before or during the early days of Interstate construction count as chargeable Interstates, at least for purposes of IM funding? I am thinking of roads like the former DFW Turnpike (now part of I-30) and Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (now part of I-95), both of which--as far as I know--are eligible for IM money.
Both of those roads were
former toll roads converted to free, I assume...it's the "free" part that allows them to receive IM funding. AFAIK, no toll road can receive IM funding as of now.
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 30, 2010, 12:52:10 PMBoth of those roads were former toll roads converted to free, I assume...it's the "free" part that allows them to receive IM funding. AFAIK, no toll road can receive IM funding as of now.
Right--in both cases initial construction was funded with bonds, which were to be liquidated by tolls, but later the tolls were removed and both roads became part of the untolled Interstate system. (I believe the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was completely paid off, but I don't know if this was also true for the DFW Turnpike.)
My understanding is that newly built toll roads cannot become eligible for IM money,
even if the tolls are removed, because FHWA stopped accepting new-built Interstates as chargeable mileage in 2003.
Quote from: The Premier on November 28, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on November 27, 2010, 03:29:14 PM
I would still toll I-69 thru Bloomington.
Good luck with that, because IIRC you can't toll an Interstate Highway.
No, you can't toll federally funded interstate highway. You can place an interstate number on a toll funded freeway - see I-88, I-355 for examples.
Sen Moynihan put in a refund for for the exsiting toll roads into ISTEA but it was never appropriated. Illinois and New York would have done very well. This would have only been for the original portions not I-88
I didnt think there was a restriction on new Interstates like 69.
Anybody have any updates on I-69 construction status for sections 1-4 in Indiana? I've checked www.i69indyevn.org and they haven't updated the project status portion of their website in a while.
Thanks!
Quote from: truejd on February 01, 2011, 01:47:19 PM
Anybody have any updates on I-69 construction status for sections 1-4 in Indiana?
Jan. 25 INDOT press release indicates they still intend to complete Evansville to Crane by end of 2012 and Evansville to Bloomington by end of 2014:
http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/66184.htm
Quote
Contract for Construction on I-69 Approved
Construction in Gibson County continues
WASHINGTON, Ind. -The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) announces today another contract award for road construction as a part of the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor in southwest Indiana. Blankenberger Brothers, Inc. of Cynthiana, Ind., submitted the lowest bid for the $22.2 million contract. This contract includes construction of the new interstate roadway from the Pigeon Creek Bridges to State Road 168 in Gibson County ...
In October 2009 Governor Daniels announced the accelerated schedules for the design and construction of the I-69 corridor. Samuel Sarvis, Deputy Commissioner of Major Programs stated "Although this is an aggressive schedule, we are confident we will meet that time frame." The completion of I-69 from Evansville to Crane is slated for the end of 2012 and from Evansville to Bloomington by the end of 2014 ...
EDIT
Evansville Courier Press indicates that four bids still need to be awarded for construction from Evansville to Crane, describes the Crane to Bloomington section as "far from finalized", and projects that all "new terrain" construction from Evansville to Indianapolis should be completed by end of 2014:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/jan/25/cynthiana-ind-company-gets-nod-22-million-section/
Thanks for the info! Good stuff.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 01, 2011, 02:38:58 PM
Evansville Courier Press indicates that four bids still need to be awarded for construction from Evansville to Crane, describes the Crane to Bloomington section as "far from finalized..."
I believe Walsh Construction is the apparent winner for a $100M section around Washington, though I have seen no public announcement yet. This was from the January 12 letting. Also, another section had a letting date of January 26. The final letting for this phase of I-69 is set for February 9. If I am not mistaken, that will mean the entire 68 miles from Evansville to Crane will be under construction or under contract. That would leave Crane to Bloomington which may be problematic.
http://www.in.gov/indot/div/lettings/18MonthsConstLettingDetailsMM_Ext.pdf (http://www.in.gov/indot/div/lettings/18MonthsConstLettingDetailsMM_Ext.pdf)
Quote from: tvketchum on October 13, 2010, 07:09:17 PM
First of all, from the North Split to Binford is dead, this was the only stretch of highway in Indianapolis that was fought and won by community activists.
The community won the fight saying the road would ruin the area. Now, thirty plus years later, the area is ruined, full of abandoned houses, and the ones that are left are crack houses, brothels, and opium dens, as well as gambling holes. The area would have been far better off had I 69 come in as was originally planned.
So they got it all wrong, then. Even without the interstate, the area ruined itself anyway. I'll take a gamble and say that everyone in Washington, DC said the same thing about I-95 coming through the city, and those areas are now ruined, with I-95 running around the east side of the Capital Beltway.
As for I-69 itself, I'd see it run around the east side of I-465, if they can't revive the old proposal through the city. But then, they'll have to widen it considerably, as was the case when I-95 was rerouted around DC.
QuoteI'll take a gamble and say that everyone in Washington, DC said the same thing about I-95 coming through the city, and those areas are now ruined
Gambled and lost. Those areas along what would be I-95 are not ruined. Not the greatest, to be fair, but definitely not ruined. If anything, the most ruined section of DC is an area where an Interstate *WAS* built: I-295.
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2011, 09:16:18 PM
QuoteI'll take a gamble and say that everyone in Washington, DC said the same thing about I-95 coming through the city, and those areas are now ruined
Gambled and lost. Those areas along what would be I-95 are not ruined. Not the greatest, to be fair, but definitely not ruined. If anything, the most ruined section of DC is an area where an Interstate *WAS* built: I-295.
Goes to show what I know about urban planning, especially the part about building highways, which is next to zero.
Quote from: mukade on February 01, 2011, 06:25:49 PM
Also, another section had a letting date of January 26. The final letting for this phase of I-69 is set for February 9. If I am not mistaken, that will mean the entire 68 miles from Evansville to Crane will be under construction or under contract. That would leave Crane to Bloomington which may be problematic.
There is a new problem for the entire Evansville to Bloomington stretch; Indianapolis Business Journal reports that environmental and citizens groups have filed suit in U.S. District Court to stop the "new terrain" work. They essentially claim that the Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider alternative routes before issuing the permit(s) for the "new terrain" work:
http://www.ibj.com/groups-file-suit-to-stop-i69-work-downstate/PARAMS/article/25215
The article indicates long odds for the lawsuit's ultimate success, but it might upset INDOT's current timetable.
EDIT
This editorial clarifies that the lawsuit alleges that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act and is asking the court to halt construction until the Corps complies with the Act:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/13/interstate-69-the-issue-foes-move-to-block-our/
The editorial also sets forth INDOT's environmental mitigation efforts on this project, including the purchase of approximately 68,600 acres along two rivers.
Whine, whine and more whine for those blankety blanks. It's been fought in court by these guys and they still refuse to accept their loss.
Quote from: mukade on February 01, 2011, 06:25:49 PM
I believe Walsh Construction is the apparent winner for a $100M section around Washington, though I have seen no public announcement yet. This was from the January 12 letting.
This award is being reported today:
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/6b7e016d7cb549e8ace3c4d1ddf1c889/IN--I-69_Contract/
Quote from: Grzrd on February 18, 2011, 05:55:14 AM
Quote from: mukade on February 01, 2011, 06:25:49 PM
I believe Walsh Construction is the apparent winner for a $100M section around Washington, though I have seen no public announcement yet. This was from the January 12 letting.
This award is being reported today:
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/6b7e016d7cb549e8ace3c4d1ddf1c889/IN--I-69_Contract/
According to the INDOT web site, the low bid for the next contract seems to be from Crider and Crider, but that isn't even at the official "pending award" stage yet. That section is around Petersburg. I think there is one more contract after that one to complete the freeway construction projects all the way from SR 68 to US 231.
Additional Contract Approved for Construction on I-69 in Gibson County
http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/68028.htm (http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/68028.htm)
Quote from: mukade on March 14, 2011, 10:31:02 PM
Additional Contract Approved for Construction on I-69 in Gibson County
http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/68028.htm (http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/68028.htm)
Quote from: mukade on February 18, 2011, 08:54:42 PM
According to the INDOT web site, the low bid for the next contract seems to be from Crider and Crider, but that isn't even at the official "pending award" stage yet. That section is around Petersburg.
It looks like the Crider & Crider Petersburg/ Pike County contract has been approved:
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=46675
Bloomington/Monroe County and INDOT once again appear to be poised for a huge dispute over I-69:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-bloomington-i-69,0,2706569.story
Quote
A Bloomington-area group has set up a possible showdown with the Indiana Department of Transportation after approving a local highway plan that does not include a section of the contentious $3 billion Interstate 69 extension from Indianapolis to Evansville.
The policy committee of the Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization approved a new highway plan Friday that left out a proposed section of the extension in Monroe County ...
The committee's move surprised Sam Sarvis, INDOT's deputy commissioner for major program management. He said the agency "would take a serious look at all discretionary funding" within Monroe County.
In 2009, the last time these two sides butted heads over conflicting highway plans, INDOT officials said as much as $32.4 million could be withheld from transportation projects in Monroe County. Local officials eventually assured INDOT they weren't trying to block I-69's construction, and the policy committee voted last year to include the I-69 project in its highway plan.
Lawyers representing I-69 opponents sent policy committee members a 23-page letter arguing against including the extension in the local plan. Among other things, it said no source of guaranteed funding had been identified as required by federal law, suggesting the policy committee could leave itself legally vulnerable.
Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan voted to exclude the extension Friday after backing it a year ago. He cited the issues raised in the letter and a question over whether INDOT would withhold local funding.
EDIT
Here's a link to a video of a TV news report:
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/monroe-county-says-no-to-i-69-project
^ INDOT should show that county they aren't bluffing, and withhold local funding, plus stop all other work within the county, and maybe sacrifice most of the county's state highways for the mileage cap.
To be fair, Bloomington and Monroe County have a point on the funding aspect. Federal law requires the MPO approve a long range transportation plan including a given project in order to allow Federal highway funding to be used on said given project. And Federal law also requires the plan to be fiscally constrained.
The state could get around the former by using state money to fund the project and not use any Federal funds on it, but the latter requirement would still require MPO approval. If the state has funding to build elements of the project, those elements could be included on the MPO plan, but if the full project does not have full funding, the MPO is legally required to leave it off the plan, or at least relegate it to an "unconstrained" portion of the plan.
For INDOT to withhold local funding would be counterproductive. What they need to do is identify funding sources to fully fund I-69 through the region within the plan horizon.
Of course, all of that still probably would not appease opponents of I-69 in Bloomington, because they still believe that the US 41/I-70 corridor should have been the selected corridor in the first place.
Problem is, since sections of the "new terrain" I-69 extension are already under construction or completed, I would assume that federal funding for the Bloomington segments would be ultimately secured, since Indiana probably wouldn't take too kindly to a stub freeway only going from Evansville to Crane.
Anthony
Doesn't matter. Per Federal law, that funding has to be either secured or identified from existing sources (or projections of said sources, i.e. projected future Federal NHS or STP funds) before the MPO could include the project on the long-range plan.
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2011, 10:11:02 AM
projections of said sources
that's the kind of accounting that has gotten us fucked as a nation.
Not really. It's incessant borrowing that's screwed us. What this has done is made the lack of a longer-term transportation reauthorization that much more problematic for transportation planning.
Why on Earth does Bloomington not want the interstate? You would think they'd appreciate that it'd be a boon for them.
Since I hail from Indiana, I know the area well. Bloomington is home of Indiana University and full of well-to-do liberal NIMBY's who really don't like highways and automobiles and believe in just about every other mode of alternate transportation. Remember Bloomington and Indiana University are home of the Little 500 bicycle race.
Plus I suspect that there is the fear among many that I-69 would bring "undesirable" growth and sprawl to the area. That thought is poison to those types. Sorry, I don't claim to be unbiased. I went to Purdue, that makes me even more biased about Bloomington and Indiana University. I grew up in Evansville and remember the lousy two-lane roads to Bloomington, that makes me even biased. My solution - build I-69 through the area and don't provide Bloomington an interchange.
Many of the people that champion the I-70/US 41 route for I-69 are most likely just trying to get it out of their backyard and delay the project long enough so that nothing gets built. If the US 41/I-70 route had been the preferred alternative, a different crop of well-to-do NIMBY's would had no doubt tried to fight that route by suggesting different alternatives to delay the whole process.
The first design project I worked on out of college was improvements to a nearby state highway to Bloomington. This was many years ago. There were a handfull of rich doctors that lived in the area that tried to block the new roadway, being quietly helped by Fish and Wildlife employees who lived in the Bloomington area.
BTW, the one positive thing about I-69 ending immediately south and west of Bloomington would be the extra traffic dumped onto the existing lousy two-lane roads in the area.
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2011, 05:54:15 PM
It's incessant borrowing that's screwed us.
same thing. we're assuming that, from somewhere, we will get the funds to pay it back...
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 16, 2011, 08:04:15 PM
BTW, the one positive thing about I-69 ending immediately south and west of Bloomington would be the extra traffic dumped onto the existing lousy two-lane roads in the area.
I assume you are referring to SR 45. Since I don't hear Greene County complaining too much about the highway, I was wondering if they might still build Section 4 east of Crane to the proposed exit there at the Monroe-Greene County Line dumping all the traffic onto SR 45 for some 10 miles or so up to SR 37, and what kind of impact that would have on those who live along 45. As for Bloomington sprawling, that's already happening, with the shopping centers along SR 37 on the westside, plus with the exits there in place (with an additional bridge or two needed) there should be little highway construction anywhere in Bloomington.
Yes SR 45 is the route I was referring to that comes into Bloomington from the west. Just let the I-69 traffic choke SR 45. Traditionallythe most popular route to Bloomington from Evansville was SR 57 to US 231 to SR 54 and SR 45. Once and awhile, I would take US 50 from Washington to Bedford and then north on SR 37, but most people came in on SR 45.
The roadway I worked on years ago was SR 446 east of town. Our project was to design several miles of a new two-lane road on new alignment. The old alignment was narrow, curvy and dangerous. The project did eventually get constructed, sometime after I moved from Indiana back in the 80's. I just remember that there were a few people in the area who were against the project and they were the most affluent in the corridor. Throughout my career that has almost always been the case. Opposition and NIMBYism is often more likely the more affluent the household is, and the Bloomington area has a high concentration, hence the unsurprising opposition to I-69.
I'm with Road Warrior build it with no exits or exits that charge people to go into Bloomington but not out. In other words hit em in the pocket book.
I just noticed this article from a few days ago entitled "Lawsuit another potential roadblock for I-69 construction":
http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=235&articleID=60774 (http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=235&articleID=60774)
"Earlier this year, the Bloomington Metropolitan Planning Organization tried to block the highway's construction near the city. However, the state's transportation department might have maneuvered around that obstacle... The MPOs, though, must also win state transportation officials' approval before any changes to their plans are finalized. The state is refusing to give that approval."
On the other hand, the primary opponent group is planning to file suit to stop I-69 construction.