News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

Started by mukade, June 25, 2011, 08:55:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mukade

Despite trying to make it seem like they are cooperating, the majority of the MPO is with CARR. They simply do not want I-69 in Bloomington.

Here are the Questions to INDOT from the MPO. I think both FHWA and INDOT answered many questions where answers could be accessed as part of the public record or were none of the MPO's business.

In the documentary, Gov. Daniels made clear that connecting I-69 to SR 37 was the primary immediate goal. Once connected, INDOT can turn its attentions north of Bloomington. Bloomington can do without its transportation funding for a while and the people there can evaluate whether or not their leadership has done the right thing. If the city and IU lose funding for their heavily used bus system, I think there will be pain.

Maybe the fact that INDOT has options beyond Bloomington is why they are finding "scheduling conflicts" that keep them from attending MPO meetings. Or maybe, Bloomington is already last in line for any improvements in the corridor. The state already told Morgan County that improvements there will likely start in 2014.


mukade

Latest comments from Bloomington Herald Times on MPO meeting cancellation:

Area briefs: Volunteers for trails needed; take a disability poll; MPO meeting canceled COMMENTS

First comment is excellent. Not everyone there is nuts.

Henry

So it won't be too long before we see a complete and direct Interstate connection from Indianapolis to Memphis...assuming Tennessee is hard at work on its own section. The progress in Indiana is always a good thing to see.

BTW, what would the exits on the already-existing I-69 north of Indy be renumbered to?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

codyg1985

Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
So it won't be too long before we see a complete and direct Interstate connection from Indianapolis to Memphis...assuming Tennessee is hard at work on its own section. The progress in Indiana is always a good thing to see.

BTW, what would the exits on the already-existing I-69 north of Indy be renumbered to?

Tennessee is sort of taking their time with their sections. Plus there is the Ohio River bridge south of Evansville that may take a while to build, especially since Kentucky will be in charge of a majority of its financing.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

tdindy88

Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
BTW, what would the exits on the already-existing I-69 north of Indy be renumbered to?

There was a document, I believe to FHWA about INDOT wanting to officially mark the proposed route of I-69 north toward Indianapolis. The document however mentioned that the current Exit 0 would be at the new milemarker 184. Wikipedia had on its list of exits along I-69 in Indiana a list of the current exits and of the proposed exit numbers, but that second part of the list has since disappeared. So, just add the current number to 184 and that should give the new exit number. I'm just wondering if they are going to have to put all new signs in or if they can just replace the exit tabs. There are still a few button copy signs in Madison and Delaware Counties and I'm now thinking that they are waiting to replace those when they get the go ahead to renumber the exits. Just my thought though.

Henry

Quote from: tdindy88 on February 07, 2012, 01:13:08 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
BTW, what would the exits on the already-existing I-69 north of Indy be renumbered to?

There was a document, I believe to FHWA about INDOT wanting to officially mark the proposed route of I-69 north toward Indianapolis. The document however mentioned that the current Exit 0 would be at the new milemarker 184. Wikipedia had on its list of exits along I-69 in Indiana a list of the current exits and of the proposed exit numbers, but that second part of the list has since disappeared. So, just add the current number to 184 and that should give the new exit number. I'm just wondering if they are going to have to put all new signs in or if they can just replace the exit tabs. There are still a few button copy signs in Madison and Delaware Counties and I'm now thinking that they are waiting to replace those when they get the go ahead to renumber the exits. Just my thought though.
If there's a link to the aforementioned document, I would like to see it. Seeing that when finished, the extension will run 184 miles from the current southern end, I imagine that Indiana will follow the same signing convention that Virginia and Pennsylvania (and I'm sure Florida, Georgia and Maine did it too) used when those states switched from sequential to mileage-based: in addition to re-signing the current exits to reflect the new number, signs saying "Old Exit XXX" would be placed alongside the newly-adjusted signs indicating the old number. That way, motorists would be given time to get accustomed to the new exit numbers, and once they are fully accustomed to them, the "Old Exit XXX" signs will be removed.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

tdindy88

This should be the link, it's from the references part of the Wikipedia page:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100418145841/i-69/images/c/c1/FHWA_Administrator_Letter_-_to_review_Indiana_I-69_requests.pdf

As for the request itself, I'm not sure whether or not it was granted.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

truejd

Does anyone know if there is an updated projection for when sections 1-3 will be open from Evansville to Crane?  I've read that predictions call for the end of this year.  Does anyone know of anything more specific?

Henry

Quote from: tdindy88 on February 08, 2012, 01:23:27 AM
This should be the link, it's from the references part of the Wikipedia page:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100418145841/i-69/images/c/c1/FHWA_Administrator_Letter_-_to_review_Indiana_I-69_requests.pdf

As for the request itself, I'm not sure whether or not it was granted.

Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2012, 01:53:59 AM
Also available here: http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/FHWA%20Administrator%20Letter%20-%20to%20review%20Indiana%20I-69%20requests.pdf
AASHTO ruled "Conditional as Future I-69 pending FHWA approval letter".
This helps out a lot! I really appreciate it.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Grzrd

#135
Quote from: Grzrd on January 29, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
I do think the ball is in INDOT's court to provide some information to the MPO as to what would be involved in being a "participating agency".  I suspect, and I think INDOT probably suspects likewise, that whatever would be presented to the MPO would be objected to as inadequate

Yesterday, INDOT and FHWA officials met with the Bloomington/Monroe County MPO and offered Bloomington and Monroe County individual opportunities to serve as a "participating agency" during the Section 5 environmental review process. Bloomington City Councilman Andy Ruff claims participation would be "moot" at this point:

Quote
Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration officals met with members of the Bloomington, Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization's I-69 subcommittee Friday, to formally invite the cities of Bloomington and Martinsville, the town of Elletsville, and the counties of Morgan and Monroe to weigh in on the Environmental Impact Statement for the section of I-69 that runs from Bloomington to Martinsville.
According to INDOT Deputy Commissioner of Major Programs Samuel Sarvis, this offer will give local governments a chance to contribute to the planning of the road.
"They get to bring their technical, and their regional expertise to the project,"  he says.
However, Bloomington City Councilman Andy Ruff says local input on section five is moot at this point.
"I just don't think section five provides the concerned public with anywhere near the critical opportunities for influencing the project."
According to Sarvis, the "˜Participating Agency' meetings will take place about once a month. The governmental bodies have until early March to either accept or decline the invitations.

Why participate when it is more fun to disrupt?   :jumping:    :crazy:

ShawnP

They are going to disrupt themselves right out of MILLIONS in transportation funds. I would not feel a bit sorry for them and those that voted them in.

tdindy88

One more note about the future exit numbers for the northern, current section of I-69. INDOT recently installed blue 2/10th mile markers along the interstate from I-465 north to Anderson (Exit 26.) This means a whole lot of signs that will have to be replaced in a few years.  :banghead:

NE2

Quote from: tdindy88 on February 15, 2012, 11:11:48 PM
This means a whole lot of signs that will have to be relocated in a few years.  :banghead:
Fixed for you.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

PurdueBill

Judging from seeing recent (the word "mile" included and direction spelled out) blue milemarkers in places like I-70 east of Indy being replaced with identical ones instead of being moved over (i.e., old ones on temporary jersey barrier in work zone, new identical ones already installed instead of moving "old" ones that were only a couple years old), I wouldn't doubt that INDOT wouldn't go to the trouble to remove the signs from original I-69 to move them down south. 

(Lest this seem like a slam at INDOT, I've seen ODOT do the same exact thing--replace recent blue milemarkers instead of simply move them from the construction jersey barrier to the new permanent median, even though they were moved from the original median to the temporary one).

tdindy88

Now that I think of it, they could just take those milemarkers out and hold them in storage until I-69 is signed in Evansville and relocate them there, which it seems you were aluding too. Of course, that may be a while before they reroute it down there.


Grzrd

#141
Quote from: mukade on January 29, 2012, 12:50:05 PM
In the documentary, Gov. Daniels made clear that connecting I-69 to SR 37 was the primary immediate goal.

Indiana Public Media reports (with plan diagrams) that INDOT is proposing two I-69/ SR 37 interchange options:

Quote
INDOT officials Wednesday have proposed two possibilities for how the interchange between Interstate 69 and State Road 37 might be constructed.
One plan would require drivers to reduce their speeds to 20 mph and would include a roundabout, while the other plan would allow cars to move faster upon entering and exiting I-69. The plan allowing for higher speeds would cost about $1 million more. According to INDOT Deputy Commissioner for Major Project Management Sam Sarvis, the agency will be asking for public input before a final decision on which plan to implement.
"There'll be a reevaluation process and public input this spring, and the decision will be made sometime after that, after we have got all that public input,"  Sarvis says.
Sarvis says the construction of the interchange could begin as early as January or February of next year, with completion anticipated by the end of 2014.

Bloomington/ Monroe County MPO will have a chance to provide their input ...

hbelkins

A roundabout on a mainline interstate? That's what the story seems to imply but it's not the case at all when you look at the plans.

What's the big deal about not using the conventional trumpet interchange? So what if one of the ramps requires 25 mph traffic? Lots of trumpets and cloverleafs already have 25 mph ramps.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

tdindy88

As one who has traveled this highway in the past, I would pick the trumpet interchange any day of the week. There is nothing wrong about the roundabout design, but I think those work best with a freeway to minor road interchange. SR 37 south of Bloomington will still be a well-traveled four-lane expressway and the only 25-MPH ramp will be from northbound SR 37 to SB (southwest bound really) I-69, a movement that won't be taken too much.

tdindy88


Stephane Dumas


ShawnP

"When are we going to learn that creating jobs by destroying the earth is a fool's strategy?"  he said. "If you say "˜No, not on my watch,' then you will have done the right thing — something you can be proud of."

The real Tom Tokarskit comes out as a bitter, hateful little man.

Is it possible to build sound directors aimed right at his house?

InterstateNG

I demand an apology.

Grzrd

Just like a Halloween or Friday the 13th movie, don't ever make the mistake of thinking that the MPO has been neutralized and won't return ...

According to this article, Monroe County Commissioner Mark Stoops plans to challenge the vote of Bill Williams, Monroe County Highway Department director:

Quote
By a narrow 7-6 vote, the policy committee of the Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to include construction of Interstate 69 to Indiana 37 in their Transportation Improvement Program ....
But if one member of the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee succeeds, this decision could be reversed ....
During Friday's MPO meeting, several community members approached the board with concerns of conflict of interest. Bill Williams, Monroe County Highway Department director, was their concern.
Williams' son works as a subcontractor for INDOT, specifically working on construction of I-69. During the meeting, chairperson Kent McDaniel, representing the Bloomington Public Transit Corp., said no conflict of interest existed because Williams does not benefit directly from his son's employment.
Ultimately, Williams voted "˜yes' to include I-69 in the TIP.
Monroe County Commissioner Mark Stoops disagrees.
"I will be contesting the vote,"  Stoops said. "The MPO violated the requirements of the Indiana Code when they're confronted with a conflict of interest."
According to sate law, when the MPO was notified of a conflict of interest they were required to receive an opinion from an outside source not on the committee. They would then have been required to submit a written review of the conflict of interest and decide whether or not the perceived conflict of interest existed.
This was not the only procedural flaw, Stoops said. When the Monroe County Commissioners appointed Williams to the MPO, Stoops said they should have been notified of the conflict of interest before appointing Williams to the MPO.
"Indiana Code specifically states that if an immediate family member has a financial interest, that represents a conflict,"  Stoops said. "The vote by Bill Williams, it was a "˜yes' vote, will be void and not valid. So that means, technically, I-69 is not included in our TIP because the vote to include it in our TIP failed."
Stoops plans to challenge Williams' vote Monday.

hbelkins

How in the world does our system allow a group of NIMBY yahoos to stand in the way of a major cross-state (and in this case, transcontinental) highway? This should be a decision made by state and federal officials. Yes, local residents should be able to express their opinions, but this MPO that surely (surely? surely!) does not represent the majority opinion in the area?

Is it going to take having a child of one of these NIMBYs being killed by being T-boned at a traffic light on IN 37 between Bloomington and Indy for them to change their minds?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.