Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

[silverback1065]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

[theline]

Thanks Mitch. Long gone from the governor's mansion, but still finding ways to screw Hoosiers.

[GreenLanternCorps]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

[Rothman]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

[qguy]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

In the election this past April, Philadelphians approved a change to the City Charter (the city's constitution) allowing selection of best value instead of mandating selection of lowest bid.

[I-39]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

That is wrong. Cheaper is not always better, in fact, usually the "cheapest option" ends up being extremely poor quality and then they have to spend extra $$$ on maintenance.

Do it right the first time......... go big or go home.

[Henry]

Coincidence, perhaps?

[LM117]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.

Yep. NC is one of them and I believe VA is as well.

[LM117]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

That is wrong. Cheaper is not always better, in fact, usually the "cheapest option" ends up being extremely poor quality and then they have to spend extra $$$ on maintenance.

Do it right the first time......... go big or go home.

I agree. One example that comes to mind is I-795 in NC. It opened in late 2006 (initially signed as US-117), and by 2008 the road was falling apart and crumbling due to the asphalt being too thin and subsequent truck use. NCDOT had to repave nearly the entire length of I-795 with thicker asphalt shortly afterwards. That repair didn't come cheap.

[silverback1065]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

That is wrong. Cheaper is not always better, in fact, usually the "cheapest option" ends up being extremely poor quality and then they have to spend extra $$$ on maintenance.

Do it right the first time......... go big or go home.

I agree. One example that comes to mind is I-795 in NC. It opened in late 2006 (initially signed as US-117), and by 2008 the road was falling apart and crumbling due to the asphalt being too thin and subsequent truck use. NCDOT had to repave nearly the entire length of I-795 with thicker asphalt shortly afterwards. That repair didn't come cheap.

INDOT had a similar problem recently, except it affected several projects around the state.

[Rothman]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

That is wrong. Cheaper is not always better, in fact, usually the "cheapest option" ends up being extremely poor quality and then they have to spend extra $$$ on maintenance.

Do it right the first time......... go big or go home.

Your opinion is noted and the law stays the same.

[I-39]

the state sure knows how to pick em 

The term you are looking for is "The lowest bidder".

This is why, when I got a new A/C and furnace, I got five estimates and threw out the lowest and highest, then looked at the other three.

I believe in a lot of states DOTs are legally-bound to take the lowest bidder.  Here in NY, there are one or two exceptions to that (e.g., a proven bad contractor or deeply flawed bid), but they are hard to prove and are rarely pursued.

That is wrong. Cheaper is not always better, in fact, usually the "cheapest option" ends up being extremely poor quality and then they have to spend extra $$$ on maintenance.

Do it right the first time......... go big or go home.

Your opinion is noted and the law stays the same.

I know, but that doesn't change the stupidity of going cheap.

[thefro]

Thanks Mitch. Long gone from the governor's mansion, but still finding ways to screw Hoosiers.

As I said previously, this one is on our Vice President more than Mitch.

Daniels got the process going but Pence ultimately signed off on selecting this company to run things.

[theline]

Yeah, they all blend together.  Thanks for the correction.

[ITB]

It's official. The State of Indiana will assume control of Section 5 of the I-69 corridor project. Transfer to state control will occur by July 31 at the latest. According to the Indianapolis Star report (link below), Section 5 is 60% complete.

There's still a lot of work to do, and the revised August 2018 substantial completion deadline may be optimistic. If there's another mild winter, it's doable, but not a slam dunk by any means. The end of August 2018 is now less than 14 1/2 months away. That's only about 350—375 workdays max. Why do the IFA and INDOT continue to hold onto this potentially unrealistic schedule? Perhaps when the public-private partnership agreement is officially terminated, the IFA could issue a more flexible schedule, stating something along the lines of: "we aim to reach substantial completion in August 2018, but it will depend on the weather as well as other factors that may slow progress."

By August 2018, it's very possible construction may be nearing an end in the vicinity of Bloomington; that is, if construction of the Fullerton Road interchange can be wrapped up in the next month or so. Once the Fullerton Road interchange is open to traffic, crews will be able to close the Tapp Road/SR 37 intersection and begin to build the overpass and interchange there. If construction at Fullerton lags, completing the interchange at Tapp Road in timely fashion becomes more problematic.

As construction progresses, another potential issue is keeping 2 lanes constantly open in each direction in and around the Sample Road work zone. It may prove challenging. Moreover, before NB SR 37 can be closed to become an access road north of Sample Road, a new local access road that temporarily connects SR 37 to Sample Road must be completed and opened. That may take some time. We'll see.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/06/16/state-has-agreement-terminate-public-private-i-69-contract/404026001/

[Rothman]

Another PPP bites the dust.  How surprising.

In NY, NYSDOT had all but abandoned that acronym until the current Republican Administration revived it.

[thefro]

The Indianapolis Star had a long feature piece above the fold in Sunday's paper about the failure of this project.

Mike Pence's infrastructure mess: What went wrong with I-69?

And another one today on the increase in wrecks due to the construction.

[Moose]

I swear. There has been more general arsedragging on Section 5.... this after the rush to complete Section 4 ahead of time and get it open.

I could tell something was up. What I was seeing never quite meshed with the timelines seen on the webpage. Example pavement patching took 3 or so months longer then the website said it did. Whole stretches were seeing no work, when work was scheduled to begin on those stretches.

With this pubic private garbage INDOT has fumbled away any momentum it had on 69 and gave the anti people more ammo.

More to the point, I lost a car to this road.... I lost a JOB to this road. All worked out in the end. But damn, let's no do this again.

More troubling was after it was done. This company was to be trusted to maintain the thing and plow the snow for 35 years? Yeah like that wasn't going to be a disaster.

[I-39]

With this public private garbage INDOT has fumbled away any momentum it had on 69 and gave the anti people more ammo.

Well, I think the main reason it failed was because they used a foreign company that was being investigated for corruption. If they had used an American company and properly vetted it (and preferably, a local Indiana company) things may be vastly different). That being said, I'm generally not a fan of public-private partnerships anyway.

As far as the "anti people", to be fair, I really struggle to see the need for the vast majority of the extended I-69 (from Indianapolis to Texas). Existing Interstates can serve the job well, and now that I-57 will be extended to Little Rock, the combined I-70/57/30 corridor between Indianapolis and Texarkana really removes the need for I-69 between Indianapolis and Shreveport. Indiana could have done a lot with the money it wasted on I-69, including widening I-65 to three lanes for the entire length of the state.

[sparker]

With this public private garbage INDOT has fumbled away any momentum it had on 69 and gave the anti people more ammo.

Well, I think the main reason it failed was because they used a foreign company that was being investigated for corruption. If they had used an American company and properly vetted it (and preferably, a local Indiana company) things may be vastly different). That being said, I'm generally not a fan of public-private partnerships anyway.

As far as the "anti people", to be fair, I really struggle to see the need for the vast majority of the extended I-69 (from Indianapolis to Texas). Existing Interstates can serve the job well, and now that I-57 will be extended to Little Rock, the combined I-70/57/30 corridor between Indianapolis and Texarkana really removes the need for I-69 between Indianapolis and Shreveport. Indiana could have done a lot with the money it wasted on I-69, including widening I-65 to three lanes for the entire length of the state.

It's likely the Indiana segment would have eventually been built in any instance, for one reason -- Evansville (and its associated interests).  The facility may have extended just to I-64 (using old I-164, as it does today, to access the city itself) or if KY ambitions could be likewise harnessed, down the Pennyrile to I-24.  The initial push for I-69 SW of Indianapolis came from Evansville; the entire corridor as currently legislated was the result of efforts from both IN and TX (some might say overreaching!), which brought in similar interests from southern Arkansas who cobbled up the central (Shreveport-Memphis) section to link the two independent north/south proposals.  The overall I-69 concept is like the proverbial "camel as a horse put together by a committee".  Nevertheless, given the successive post-ISTEA omnibus transportation bills (1995, 1998, 2005, etc.), and the history of development efforts in certain parts of the country, it's probable that at least the southern and northern thirds of I-69 would have been independently legislated by this time. 

[LM117]

I thought the only reason Indiana pushed for I-69 to go to Texas was because it was the only way to get the feds to agree to an I-69 extension to Evansville?

[sparker]

I thought the only reason Indiana pushed for I-69 to go to Texas was because it was the only way to get the feds to agree to an I-69 extension to Evansville?

The original set of high-priority corridors were put together by various congresspersons responding to interests (civic, commercial, and otherwise).  Indiana representatives could have asked for a corridor from Indianapolis to Evansville or into Kentucky as a stand-alone project -- but, IIRC, they were concerned that a specifically in-state corridor may not make the final cut (despite other such corridors being included within the original batches of '91 and '95), so they cobbled together the alliance with Texas and Arkansas representatives to legislate HPC 18, the "whole shooting match", so to speak.  Just a matter of trying to TCB and avoid potential objections.

[I-39]

With this public private garbage INDOT has fumbled away any momentum it had on 69 and gave the anti people more ammo.

Well, I think the main reason it failed was because they used a foreign company that was being investigated for corruption. If they had used an American company and properly vetted it (and preferably, a local Indiana company) things may be vastly different). That being said, I'm generally not a fan of public-private partnerships anyway.

As far as the "anti people", to be fair, I really struggle to see the need for the vast majority of the extended I-69 (from Indianapolis to Texas). Existing Interstates can serve the job well, and now that I-57 will be extended to Little Rock, the combined I-70/57/30 corridor between Indianapolis and Texarkana really removes the need for I-69 between Indianapolis and Shreveport. Indiana could have done a lot with the money it wasted on I-69, including widening I-65 to three lanes for the entire length of the state.

It's likely the Indiana segment would have eventually been built in any instance, for one reason -- Evansville (and its associated interests).  The facility may have extended just to I-64 (using old I-164, as it does today, to access the city itself) or if KY ambitions could be likewise harnessed, down the Pennyrile to I-24. The initial push for I-69 SW of Indianapolis came from Evansville; the entire corridor as currently legislated was the result of efforts from both IN and TX (some might say overreaching!).

In that case, might as well have built the proposed I-67 corridor from Indianapolis to Owensboro as proposed by the I-67 corporation. It generally goes in a SW direction, but it goes just to the east of Evansville. I don't think that would have been necessary either, but at least it's not as long as the full I-69 corridor (from Indiana to Texas).

"(some might say overreaching!)" - Most definitely the entire I-69 corridor was overreaching, but especially the segment between Memphis and Shreveport. Its simply unneeded political pork. You want to build a much cheaper alternative? Finish the I-57 extension, which would connect Indianapolis to Texarkana and then upgrade US 59 to interstate standards between there and Houston.

[silverback1065]

69 is absolutely needed from indy to eville, it's absolutely unnecessary south of that.  according to the book on the route, it only goes to texas because that's the only way they could get congress to get money for it.  hell, it only goes through mississippi because of trent lott. 

[sparker]

Most definitely the entire I-69 corridor was overreaching, but especially the segment between Memphis and Shreveport. Its simply unneeded political pork. You want to build a much cheaper alternative? Finish the I-57 extension, which would connect Indianapolis to Texarkana and then upgrade US 59 to interstate standards between there and Houston.

You'll probably get your wish; I'd be willing to bet that the I-57 extension -- and the I-69/369 continuum between Houston and Texarkana -- will be finished long before much more than a few initial I-69 steps done as SIU's (like the 2-lane bypass of Monticello, AR and the proposed connector from existing I-69 near Tunica and the Clarksdale bypass) are completed.  Right now, Arkansas seems to be more interested in finishing off the ancillary AR 530 Pine Bluff-Monticello route than the main I-69 trunk despite rumblings about a Monticello-McGehee connector project.  Between I-49 and the new kid on the block, I-57, AR attention appears to be focused elsewhere.