Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

[CobaltYoshi27]

Just curious, how long is this section (Section 6)? My guess is approximately 25 miles, but I couldn't find anything online.

According to http://www.buildi69.com/?page_id=86, Section 6 is approximately 26 miles.

[2trailertrucker]

I believe the tentative start is 2020 with completion of 2027.

7 years to upgrade the existing SR 37 to interstate standards? Other than the system interchange with I-465, isn't it following the existing SR 37? I don't see why it would take that long (other than building the system interchange with I-465).

there is absolutely nothing done on this route, no design, no companies picked, nothing.  The permits and environmental must be done at this point, but the design will take time, and construction. And remember they don't have the funds yet. So yes, I buy their 2020 estimate.

Don't forget the lawsuits, the protesters and the like! That will slow things down also.

[RoadWarrior56]

Section 6 may be divided into more than one construction contract, due to cost considerations.  It may be constructed in sub-sections.  That in-turn may stretch the construction time, notwithstanding the almost inevitable lawsuits from NIMBY's, environmentalists, etc.  Also, I am sure INDOT is being conservative in their estimates of construction time, this many years out.

[ITB]

I believe the tentative start is 2020 with completion of 2027.

7 years to upgrade the existing SR 37 to interstate standards? Other than the system interchange with I-465, isn't it following the existing SR 37? I don't see why it would take that long (other than building the system interchange with I-465).

there is absolutely nothing done on this route, no design, no companies picked, nothing.  The permits and environmental must be done at this point, but the design will take time, and construction. And remember they don't have the funds yet. So yes, I buy their 2020 estimate.

I'm optimistic about Section 6 and its start and completion dates. INDOT is expecting the  Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)–which will set the specific alignment of the road, the location and types of interchanges and overpasses, etc.–to be released in the first quarter of 2017. That's now less than a year away. The FHWA Record of Decision (ROD), the final approval of the FEIS preferred alternative and "green" light to begin design, land acquisition and construction, is expected the first quarter of 2018. The ROD cannot be released until funding has been identified and secured. If the ROD is indeed released as planned, construction of Section 6 should begin in earnest by the spring of 2020 at the latest.

Will the construction and maintenance of Section 6 once again involve a private-public partnership (PPP or 3P) similar to what was set up for Section 5? Probably. Will the Spanish firm Isolux Corsán, the prime contractor of Section 5, aggressively bid to win the Section 6 contract? Most certainly. Will it take until 2027 for Section 6 to complete? Probably not. But a five year built-out is reasonable, bringing the completion date to 2025. Keep it mind that Section 6 is very similar to Section 5, aside from the complex system interchange with I-465.

While there may be some Nimby-ism, and an occasional lawsuit from environmentalists and property owners, Section 6, on the whole, should move steadily toward construction and completion. Why shouldn't it? It's only an upgrade of an existing 4-lane divided highway. Something like 80% of responses INDOT received concerning the routing of Section 6 supported the State Road 37 option. Moreover, the powers that be in Martinsville and Greenwood are firmly on board, and the opposition from certain legislators in the State House has been resolved. Will there be some unhappiness at the SR 37 routing decision? Of course. But it's nearly impossible to please everyone.

At this point, Section 6 is all but a done deal, with only the specific design elements and the financials to be worked out.

[ITB]

Here's some pics of Section 5. Photos were taken April 3, unless otherwise noted.


Looking north from the Rockport Road overpass toward the future Fullerton Pike interchange in Monroe County, Indiana. Bridge beams are in now place and construction of the deck is well underway.

I-69 Development Partners; Isolux Corsán, prime contractor (Indiana I-69 Corridor Project, Section 5).



The Fullerton Pike overpass; looking slightly northeast.



Close-up of the Fullerton Pike overpass; looking northeast.



Construction of the Fullerton Pike bridge deck; looking east.



Another perspective of the Fullerton Pike bridge deck; looking southeast.



Looking north from the west abutment of the Fullerton Pike overpass. Just around the bend is the State Road 37/Tapp Road intersection where another I-69 interchange is planned. But before construction on the Tapp Road interchange can begin, construction must first complete at Fullerton Pike. Of interest is the median barrier wall [pictured], which will be present all the way from the I-69/SR 37 interchange to the I-69/Sample Road interchange, about 5 miles north.

[IndyAgent]

 per the Greenwood Chamber of Commerce. SR 37 has been chosen as the route from Martinsville to 465

[mvak36]

http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/state/Indiana-pays-over--184M-for-properties-along-I-69-route

Construction on the last section is expected to take two to seven years, depending on the design and how quickly funding is acquired, and would be set to open between 2022 and 2027.

[ITB]

"Contract Disputes Halt Some Work on I-69 Section 5"

That's the front-page headline of an article which appeared in the April 5 edition of Bloomington's daily newspaper, the "Herald Times." Apparently, a subcontractor (or perhaps two) for prime contractor Isolux Corsán USA isn't being paid in a timely manner and, as a result, some work has been halted on Section 5. Because the H-T article is behind a paywall, in the spirit of fair use here's some of the pertinent parts:

Though work along Section 5 has not stopped completely, [Gary] Vandegriff [operations and maintenance manager with I-69 Development Partners] acknowledged in a Friday interview there has been "a gap in production of some of the contractors."  He did not elaborate.

The issues began some time within the last 30 days, Vandegriff said. However, he would not provide details of the conflict, saying it was between Isolux Corsan USA and its subcontractors.

State department of transportation spokesman Scott Manning said Monday the department is aware of the issues, which relate to delayed payment.

He [Manning] also could not say which subcontractors were affected by the delay, but he noted most work being done this time of year involves earth-moving operations.

Despite the contractual issues, Manning said, no subcontractors have walked off the job.

Vandegriff said there is still a lot of work to be done, but he expects the project to be finished on time.


Please note: The information in the brackets above was added by me for clarification. 

Certainly, not a positive development for Section 5 and for prime contractor Isolux Corsán USA. But, at the same time, this is nothing particularly unusual in the construction industry. Let's hope the issues can be resolved soon so work can resume at the normal full pace.

Link to the article [only available to H-T subscribers]:
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/news/local/contract-disputes-halt-some-work-on-i--section/article_8af2a254-ed8b-5c9d-9c1c-5f7649731efe.html

[TheStranger]

I got to drive part of the new I-69 a few days ago, from SR 37 in Bloomington to SR 45 (a little bit of a detour on my way back to Louisville on Friday night).

Are there any more exits planned for that stretch of road or will the long gaps between interchanges remain?  And is the signage lacking any control cities at those interchanges (SR 445, SR 45) permanent?

[tdindy88]

The long gaps between exits will remain, but where else do you think there should be exits? The Monroe County stretch of exits is designed to prevent any development in that part of the county, as far as some of the people there know having the highway there is bad enough. Besides, it's a fairly low-populated area, that and eastern Greene County, where the rest of the I-69 passes through. As for the lack of control cities at SR 445 and SR 45, again, what do you think those cities would be. There are really no actual communities around those highway, very small spots that don't even qualify as being CPDs. While I always like there to be a control point, for these two exits I can understand it, those exits are more for very local traffic than anything else, they'd be the equivalent of saying "Ranch Road" or something to that effect.

[TheStranger]

The long gaps between exits will remain, but where else do you think there should be exits?

I was thinking at SR 54 (I ended up taking SR 45 south to SR 58 east to get back to SR 37 south).  Not a necessity so much as just another access point to a rural road.

[tdindy88]

It's also only a mile or so away from the SR 45 exit (and with the whole rule about exits not being less than a mile apart) plus there is a bit of an elevation difference between SR 54 and I-69. I'd honestly just have a connector road between the two highways just north or south of the SR 45 exit, but as you said this isn't a necessity.

[noelbotevera]

I'd say that the control points for SR 45 and 445 could be Bloomington, which is the only substantial city SR 45 goes through. Besides, it's a back way to get there.

[mukade]

As for the lack of control cities at SR 445 and SR 45, again, what do you think those cities would be. There are really no actual communities around those highway, very small spots that don't even qualify as being CPDs. While I always like there to be a control point, for these two exits I can understand it, those exits are more for very local traffic than anything else, they'd be the equivalent of saying "Ranch Road" or something to that effect.

SR 445 should have Bloomfield and/or Linton as control cities. Bloomfield is the county seat of Greene County. Linton is in Greene County and has over twice as many people as Bloomfield. I assume both the extension of SR 445 and the construction of the exit there was primarily to serve these two cities.  SR 45 is probably mostly to serve Crane, but that is not the main entrance so I am not sure what else they could do.

[US 41]

For SR 45 I'd probably use Cincinnati / Owensburg as the control cities and for SR 445 I'd probably use Bloomfield (and maybe Cincinnati).

[CobaltYoshi27]

For SR 45 I'd probably use Cincinnati / Owensburg as the control cities and for SR 445 I'd probably use Bloomfield (and maybe Cincinnati).

At first I thought you meant Cincinnati, Ohio, but then I realized there's a Cincinnati in Indiana. 

[tdindy88]

Which is probably why they aren't signing Cincinnati on the highway signs. You can't even really find a population figure for Cincinnati, Indiana, it's that small. Going back to this. Southbound on I-69, Bloomfield could be the control for SR 445, maybe even Linton. Owensburg could work for SR 45 (of course people may confuse that for Owensboro, and the next exit US 231 DOES take you to that city. Northbound on I-69, the only control I could think of for either SR 445 or SR 45 that no one has thought of, Stanford, along SR 45 in southwest Monroe County.

[Henry]

Yup, it's an unincorporated place that's part of Center Township in Greene County (population 3,535). As a side note: The town of Cincinnati got its name when a visitor from the large city of the same name told the innkeeper that the hills and whiskey reminded him of his hometown.

[thefro]

Fitch has downgraded the ratings on the Indiana Finance Authority/I-69 Development Partners LLC bonds to BBB-

They also say the substantial completion date for Section 5 is now June 2017, which is something that hasn't been disclosed by INDOT or on the I-69 Section 5 project website, but presumably was in some of Isolux's documents.

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch Ratings has downgraded the Indiana Finance Authority's private activity bonds (PABs) issued on behalf of I-69 Development Partners LLC (I-69 DP) for the I-69 Section 5 project to 'BBB-'. Fitch has also placed the bonds on Rating Watch Negative.

The downgrade reflects the deteriorating credit quality of Isolux Corsan SA (Isolux), parent of the construction contractor, Corsan-Corviam Construccion SA, whose rating was revised to 'B-'/Rating Watch Negative on Feb. 12, 2016. This followed an earlier downgrade of Isolux on Dec. 7, 2015 to 'B'/Rating Watch Negative.

The downgrade further reflects a projected eight month delay to substantial completion, initially expected in October 2016, which was disclosed in the most recent construction update published in March 2016. In Fitch's opinion the material delay in substantial completion implies a greater exposure to the credit quality of the construction guarantor. The Rating Watch Negative on the PABs reflects the Rating Watch Negative on the construction guarantor's ratings. Fitch believes, based on all information it has received, that the revised substantial completion date of June 28, 2017 is achievable given that all material permits have now been approved.

Since Fitch's last review, I-69 DP has disclosed significant construction delays. In the January 2016 construction update published March 3, 2016, it was stated that it will not be realistically possible to meet the current substantial completion date of Oct. 31, 2016 and that I-69 DP, IFA and design-build contractor had agreed to a revised substantial completion date of June 28, 2017, reflecting an eight-month delay to the original substantial completion date and just four months ahead of the project's longstop completion date.

Reasons for the construction delays primarily relate to obtaining necessary rail road permits as well as the updating and modification of 404 other permits required for works at multiple locations. Such permitting issues have held up construction start as well as the flow of the work. Fitch understands that all material permits relating to the project have now been received and that construction is progressing in accordance with the revised schedule. They also reflect geotechnical issues faced by the project at two sites as a result of the discovery of unexpected karst features, for which Fitch understands the project company has requested a relief event.

According to the project company, construction is progressing in line with the revised schedule, and it was possible for some works to be progressed during the winter. Assuming the schedule is met, at the start of 2016/17 winter, remaining works will primarily relate to paving, striping and signage work - while such works can't progress during winter months, Fitch views such works as being relatively straightforward and would not expect them to be the source of any additional delays during 2017. Importantly, remaining earthworks and most remaining structural work should be completed before the start of winter 2016/17.

[Rothman]

Only one notch from junk!

[abqtraveler]

Only one notch from junk!

Yes, but the contractor is still on the hook to get the work done in the time specified.  Perhaps an advantage of the DBFOM model is that it transfers the project's risk from the taxpayer to the contractor.

[thefro]

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/news/local/i--section-completion-delayed-to-june/article_55eaf1de-24ff-5380-b7d7-c22f17dca65e.html

Bloomington Herald-Times has confirmed with INDOT what Fitch reported in its ratings downgrade.

Section 5 of Interstate 69 won't be finished until at least summer 2017, nearly eight months after the original expected completion date.

Until this point, officials with I-69 Development Partners said they expected the project to be finished by October 2016. Now, the project isn't expected to be completed until June 28, 2017, according to an email from Will Wingfield, Indiana Department of Transportation spokesma

Rest is behind the paywall.

I don't have an issue with them delaying things, but it seems pretty shady that this news came out through Fitch and wasn't publicly reported.

[SW Indiana]

Traveled to Indy this past weekend. A couple of the BGS bit the dust, presumably from the windstorm we had a couple weeks ago. I also glad to see the stop light at US231 and SR45/58 just south of the interchange had been removed.

[thefro]

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160413/news/304139877/

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- State highway officials have pushed back the expected completion date for a section of southern Indiana's Interstate 69 extension by at least eight months.

Developers initially expected to complete the 21-mile stretch between Bloomington and Martinsville by October 2016, The (Bloomington) Herald-Times (http://bit.ly/1YtB7Jv ) reported. But now the section of highway isn't expected to be completed until late June 2017.

Indiana Department of Transportation spokesman Will Wingfield said the delay will not affect the cost of the project for taxpayers. He referred requests about the delay to I-69 Development Partners, which was hired by the department to design, build and finance the section of highway.

The newspaper's attempts for comment from I-69 Development Partners about the delay were unsuccessful Tuesday.

Last week, I-69 Development Partners operations and maintenance manager Gary Vandegriff said disputes between the design-build contractor, Isolux Corsan, and its subcontractors halted some work on the project. He said the contract issues began sometime within the past 30 days, but he declined to provide details about the conflict, saying it was between the contractor and its subcontractors.

Department of Transportation spokesman Scott Manning said last week that the dispute relates to delayed payments. He said the contracts between Isolux and its subcontractors stipulate that full payment should be made within 10 days of completion of a job, but it was more in the 60- to 90-day range in some cases.

Manning said he wasn't aware of why the payments were delayed or which subcontractors were affected. But he said most of the work that's being done at this time of year involved earth-moving operations.

[US 41]

I drove on 37 from Tapp Road to SR 46 yesterday. So I'm guessing that INDOT changed their minds again and is going to leave the SR 45 (Bloomfield Rd) interchange alone?