Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

[mukade]

Another I-69 contract award for $74M:

INDOT awards contract for another section of I-69 (from Evansville Courier Press)

and

OFFICIAL TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED (from INDOT)

[truejd]

I noticed on Bing Maps that the arial view of the I-69 corridor has been updated in southwestern Indiana...pretty cool

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=38.293356515280294~-87.39932037197641&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&form=LMLTSN

[codyg1985]

^ Wow that shows a lot more of it under construction. It will be nice to see it updated to show the progress to Crane.

[mukade]

It is funny how so much of I-69 is shown, but older construction such as parts of SR 25, US 31 South Bend, and US 31 Kokomo aren't. US 24 construction is over a year old.

[mukade]

Apparently INDOT and FHWA are fully fed up with the Bloomington MPO so they boycotted a meeting held by their I-69 subcommittee.

INDOT, FHWA Skip I-69 Subcommittee Meeting (from Indiana Public Media)

Adding a link to the the story comments in the Bloomington Herald Times for this subject. It is always a lively and interesting discussion although the same points seem to made over and over. One anti-I-69 poster insists (rationalizes) all funding for the entire road must be in place before the MPO can approve it.

MPO committee still seeking answers on I-69; decision may be delayed Comments

[ShawnP]

Bloomington keeps this up they might not like what they get for a Interstate.

[mightyace]

Some people just don't know when they're licked.

Sometimes you just have to accept it and move on...

[hbelkins]

It may take a few prominent Bloomington residents, or their kids, getting killed at stoplights on IN 37 on their way to or from Indy for them to realize the benefits of having an expressway linking their college town to the state's biggest city.

[mukade]

There really is no logic there anymore. It has become an embarrassing personal battle for the MPO against INDOT. The local Bloomington paper does not display articles (many of which sound like they may be interesting), but oddly, they do display comments for articles. The top comment in this link is a very insightful one even though the the author has anti-I-69 point-of-view. It describes the way MPOs work in most cities, and how the Bloomington MPO does not act.

I think there might be a small split of opinion in the Bloomington MPO - the pure "no I-69 in Bloomington" crowd vs. the "we need to get local road improvements in exchange for a yes vote crowd". Nonetheless, it still comes down to always either postponing or voting "no" to putting I-69 in the TIP.

One thing I wondered was about the anti-I-69 people's talking points. They claim that unless the funding is in place for the entire project (i.e. to Indianapolis), INDOT cannot legally build any of the road. By that logic, the Ohio River Bridge also needs funding, I guess. Where did they come up with that idea? Is there any truth to it? If so, every state is violating that rule.

[mukade]

For anyone interested in reading letters about I-69 exchanged between INDOT and the Bloomington MPO (and others) you can see them here (from Indiana Public Media).

[Grzrd]

I-69: Are We There Yet?, an Indiana public television documentary, will air Thursday night (it will also be streamed live).  After the documentary is aired, some of the major players will answer questions from the viewing audience via phone, email, facebook and twitter.  Might be an opportunity to ask Martin and Tokarski some tough questions:

The joint radio and television news department of Indiana public broadcasting stations WFIU and WTIU is premiering a documentary on the history of I-69 on Thursday at 8 p.m.
The hour-long documentary will air simultaneously on WFIU Public Radio and WTIU Public Television.
I-69: Are We There Yet? offers a local, regional, and national perspective on Interstate 69, a highway whose history stretches more than 20 years, and the debates over which remain headline news.
To watch a brief preview of the documentary, visit indianapublicmedia.org/i69 .
"The idea for Interstate 69 as well as the first organized opposition to the road began in Indiana more than two decades ago," says Sara Wittmeyer, WFIU/WTIU News Bureau Chief. "Today the road remains one of the most contentious issues in the state. This documentary examines the complicated history from both perspectives."
Members of the media are invited to attend the premiere at the WFIU and WTIU studios.
Following the premiere of the documentary there will be a panel discussion featuring stakeholders on various sides of the issue.
Scheduled guests include:
* Richard Martin, Bloomington Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization
* Ron Arnold, Daviess County Economic Development Corporation
* Thomas Tokarski, CARR co-founder.
The live panel will take questions from the radio and TV audiences by phone (Skype + 1-800-987-9848), email news@indianapublicmedia.org, and through social media sites Facebook (facebook.com/interstate69) and Twitter (@Inpubmedianews #i69).
The documentary will be made available for subsequent broadcast by NPR and PBS affiliates nationwide.
WFIU -- Public Radio from Indiana University -- broadcasts in Bloomington at 103.7 FM, with translators in Columbus at 100.7 FM, French Lick/West Baden at 101.7 FM, Greensburg at 98.9 FM, Kokomo at 106.1 FM, and Terre Haute at 95.1 FM.
All content can be streamed live online at wfiu.org. WFIU is an NPR member station offering local and national news as well as jazz and classical music.
WTIU is the PBS television station owned and operated by Indiana University and serves over 350,000 households in 29 counties in West and South Central Indiana. WTIU airs programming on four digital channels 24 hours a day, and produces local, regional and national programs.

Here's the two minute preview of the documentary.

[Alex]

Any idea of what the final exit number for SR 68 will be?

[mukade]

Any idea of what the final exit number for SR 68 will be?

Exit 21 is my guess. It is about 3 miles from US 41 to where I-69 will join current I-164. It is about 1.8 miles from I-164 to the Ohio River. Therefore, the difference is about 1 mile less on I-69 (future) than I-164. Considering that SR 68 was exit 22 on I-69 using I-164's numbering, that should make it 21 but it depends on how close SR 68 is to the mile marker, of course.

[mukade]

Recent I-69 articles from Bloomington:
INDOT Updates MPO Technical Committee On I-69 (Indiana Public Media)

Property Owners Say I-69 Is Forcing Them To Move Too Quickly (Indiana Public Media)

INDOT pressing ahead with I-69 construction in Section 4 - COMMENTS (Bloomington Herald Times)

[mukade]

Below is a link to a rare full online article in the Herald-Times that you can see without a subscription. As background, Morgan County sits between Monroe County (Bloomington) and Indy. Despite a significant anti I-69 sentiment there over the years, they seemed to have settled on a much different approach than Bloomington's. From what I have read, the construction of I-69 in Martinsville may begin in 2014. This year's INDOT lettings include demolition of buildings there in preparation of the new highway.

Morgan County: A blue-ribbon partnership

[tdindy88]

If I recall, the flooding in 2008 down in Martinsville did INDOT a few favors and some of the buildings that were next to SR 37 were already ready for demolition. It would be interesting to see how Martinsville does approach the construction of the interstate thru town since I feel it will have a different feel than the rest of the interstate.

[Grzrd]

I-69: Are We There Yet?, an Indiana public television documentary, will air Thursday night (it will also be streamed live).  After the documentary is aired, some of the major players will answer questions from the viewing audience via phone, email, facebook and twitter.

Scheduled guests include:
* Richard Martin, Bloomington Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization
* Ron Arnold, Daviess County Economic Development Corporation
* Thomas Tokarski, CARR co-founder.

In case you missed the live streaming last night and want some weekend viewing, the I-69: Are We There Yet? documentary may be seen here.  The documentary itself is about one hour and Q & A with the panelists afterwards is about thirty minutes.  After seeing Martin in action, I can see why INDOT and FHWA skipped the last meeting. 

[mukade]

The documentary, despite a slight bias toward Tom Tokarski (the main anti-I-69 activist), is informative and well done. The Q&A left a lot to be desired, IMO.

[ShawnP]

I still say take all exits away from Bloomington. If they want to play tough then play tough with them. Take all exits away and put up sound barriers instead. Big 30 foot high concrete ugly sound barriers.

[RoadWarrior56]

I watched part of the documentary last night, and what was new to me was the discussion about the substntial cost savings applied to the roadway.  I think a more technical term for it is Value Engineering (VE to us engineers).  It sounds like liberal amounts of VE were applied.  Actuallly when Federal money is involved, a VE study is mandatory for projects that are over 25 million in cost.   

[mukade]

INDOT talked about using the thinner staged pavement methods to save money as they said. I thought this option was only possible if the HMA option were chosen. I believe every winning bid has specified the PCCP option. Anyway, there is a link here that discusses the staged pavement proposal from Asphalt Indiana.

Another thing I think I heard from CARR was lamenting how thousands of acres of prime farmland would be consumed by the new road. Later a CARR person said Indiana was cutting corners by reducing the median width from 84 feet to 60 feet (or something like that). That seems like quite a contradiction. CARR also said Indiana is the only I-69 state going with a new terrain route. Besides the fact the fairly long SR 37 portion is not new terrain, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana do have significant new terrain routes. I am not sure about Texas. Kentucky's routing is mostly on existing roadways except around Henderson.

[mukade]

An IBJ article, Daniels criticized for lopping costs on I-69 extension, also suggests that the corner cutting discussed as fact by CARR and other I-69 opponents in the documentary was if the staged asphalt pavement methods were used on I-69. The INDOT Contract Letting Information shows what which pavement option was selected in the awards, and I think all mainline contracts have been for concrete pavement.

The obfuscation created by the opponents is remarkable. The cost cutting is one, but the routing is another. The motivation for the new road always was a high speed direct route from Evansville to Indy. CARR and other opponents successfully changed the media discussion to the routing of I-69 in Indiana. The documentary also discusses this topic which is often lost in the emotional discussions still coming out of Bloomington.

Another issue of interest is that the Bloomington Herald Times has an article today suggesting the February MPO meeting has been canceled - adding I-69 back to the TIP was the main issue in that meeting. You have to think that the threat of the loss of transportation funding for Bloomington simply does not bother them.

[NE2]

Hmmm. I get about 27 miles saved using the new I-69 (rough estimate of 91.5 miles from the SR 68 exit to SR 37 at Bloomington). Does this sound about right?

[mukade]

Probably 22-28 miles less on the new terrain/SR 37 route over US 41/I-70. It is hard to be exact because the routing/distance of the Terre Haute bypass (more or less what turned out to be SR 641) is unknown and whether I-69 would have followed I-465 south leg, I-465 north leg, or I-70 through downtown is not known. In any event, the time savings from Evansville to Indy would be far greater than the 5-12 minute time savings the I-69 opposition uses.

I assume everyone agrees I-164 would be I-69 - so the south end for the comparison is the I-64/I-164 interchange and the north end is the existing I-465/I-69 interchange.

As far as costs go, the supposedly huge cost savings of the US 41/I-70 route don't take into account the widening of I-70 from Terre Haute to Indy which probably would (at least eventually) become necessary as I-69 should pick up some I-65 and I-57 traffic. Maybe even some I-55 traffic headed to Texas might use I-69.

[Grzrd]

For anyone interested in reading letters about I-69 exchanged between INDOT and the Bloomington MPO (and others) you can see them here (from Indiana Public Media).

The letters in the above link are an interesting read; they are contained in a separate thirteen-page reader.

First, the FHWA and INDOT have offered to to invite the Bloomington/Monroe County government(s) to be a "participating agency" in the environmental review of Section 5 of I-69 as that term is used in Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU.  The MPO is withholding inclusion of Section 4 in its TIP as "leverage" to "negotiate" the terms of participation in the environmental review of Section 5.

Isn't participation a good thing? What's the problem? Isn't this what the MPO has wanted?  Perhaps the better question is whether the MPO truly has a good faith desire to cooperate in its participation, or if it simply wants to use participation as an inside mechanism to obstruct and delay.  I suspect it is the latter.

First, in terms of past efforts to participate, MPO Chairman Kent McDaniel readily admits that he has not attended any of INDOT's sponsored meetings on I-69 (page 4/13).  This strikes me as a curious lack of both interest and effort on his part regarding a project of such importance to the MPO.  Next, it is not clear whether Bloomington and Monroe County want to participate jointly, or whether each governmental unit should be a separate "participating agency" (page 8/13). Also, Richard Martin expresses a concern that "INDOT and contractor personnel are working at a pace that may be difficult for either City or County to maintain" (page 7/13) and expresses concern about the "timely review and comment" responsibility of a participating agency (page 6/13).  These comments do not seem to reflect a desire to work hard to reach a timely solution; they suggest a strategy of delay, delay, delay.

To be fair, 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 and a failure to "negotiate" (although, as I read Section 6002, I do not see a requirement for lead agencies to "negotiate" the terms of involvement for a "participating agency").

The Section 5 environmental review could be a nightmare.