Indiana Notes

[Great Lakes Roads]

This may have been already reported, but the US 52 / I-65 interchange northwest of Lebanon (Exit 141) is being replaced. There will be a diverging diamond interchange with full access to I-65 and a future technology park development. This interchange will likely be numbered Exit 143 on I-65.

Info link: https://www.52at65.com/

It's going to be signed as exit 143, per the INDOT plans for this project...

[Great Lakes Roads]

Heads up on a major contract that is scheduled to be let next month. On February 26, bids for Contract #2 of the Revive I-70 program in Wayne County will be opened.

Of surprise, and disappointment, Contract #2 does not stipulate the widening of I-70 to three lanes in each direction. Rather the project, which stretches nearly nines in length, is more restorative in nature, rebuilding several bridges and reconstructing the roadways.

Well, so much for the ambitions to completely 3-lane I-70 between Indianapolis and the Ohio state line. INDOT, evidently, doesn't see the need at this time.

hopefully the new bridges are built with widening in mind

If it's a "Superstructure Replacement", then yes, the new bridges will be built with a future third lane in mind...

[silverback1065]

Most likely, the level of service and AADT levels do not yet warrant three-laning between Richmond and Greenfield. I suspect the closeness of three interchanges in Richmond play a role as the AADT levels do not vary significantly.

Interstate 70, .5 miles east of US 27 in Richmond (STA 973360), has an AADT of 39,212, but this figure has increased from 33,059 since 2014.

Interstate 70, 1 mile east of SR 1 in Jacksonburg (STA 973320), has an AADT of 38,523, but this figure has increased from 32,649 since 2014.

Further west, Interstate 70, 1 mile east of SR 109 (STA 973290), has an ADT of 42,076, but this figure has increased from 37,008 since 2014.

Regardless, I can't wait for this reconstruction. The pavement is beyond the need for further patching and is one of the worst highways I've driven on in recent years.

my guess is lack of money. they are already talking about how funding needs to be increased again at the statehouse.

[mgk920]

This may have been already reported, but the US 52 / I-65 interchange northwest of Lebanon (Exit 141) is being replaced. There will be a diverging diamond interchange with full access to I-65 and a future technology park development. This interchange will likely be numbered Exit 143 on I-65.

Info link: https://www.52at65.com/

[ Snippage ]

VERY interesting, US 52 is finally being properly downgraded there, a 'leftover' from when I-65 was first built over a half century ago.

Mike

[jnewkirk77]

VERY interesting, US 52 is finally being properly downgraded there, a 'leftover' from when I-65 was first built over a half century ago.

Mike

I'm not sure what you mean by "downgraded."

[tdindy88]

Also in the signage plans for the future Exit 143, US 52 will be signed for Lafayette. That's an interesting choice. It makes sense but I would think I-65 would still be the faster route to Lafayette time wise.

I had a bad feeling that the I-70 plans would get truncated so the widening takes place only around Richmond. It looks like the same thing that happened with I-65 between Scottsburg and Memphis. I have no idea what the financial situation is like with INDOT but it seems that widening I-65 and I-70 across the state will take a very long time. I wonder if the General Assembly could pass something to fund the widening of the two highways specifically to speed up the process?

[silverback1065]

Also in the signage plans for the future Exit 143, US 52 will be signed for Lafayette. That's an interesting choice. It makes sense but I would think I-65 would still be the faster route to Lafayette time wise.

I had a bad feeling that the I-70 plans would get truncated so the widening takes place only around Richmond. It looks like the same thing that happened with I-65 between Scottsburg and Memphis. I have no idea what the financial situation is like with INDOT but it seems that widening I-65 and I-70 across the state will take a very long time. I wonder if the General Assembly could pass something to fund the widening of the two highways specifically to speed up the process?

US 52 is the better choice to get to West Lafayette and Purdue. Not 65. I personally think that eventually we will all have to just accept that most freeways in America will need to be tolled in order to maintain them. 

[ITB]

Also in the signage plans for the future Exit 143, US 52 will be signed for Lafayette. That's an interesting choice. It makes sense but I would think I-65 would still be the faster route to Lafayette time wise.

I had a bad feeling that the I-70 plans would get truncated so the widening takes place only around Richmond. It looks like the same thing that happened with I-65 between Scottsburg and Memphis. I have no idea what the financial situation is like with INDOT but it seems that widening I-65 and I-70 across the state will take a very long time. I wonder if the General Assembly could pass something to fund the widening of the two highways specifically to speed up the process?

I personally think that eventually we will all have to just accept that most freeways in America will need to be tolled in order to maintain them. 

Yes, the cost to states to maintain the interstate system is becoming prohibitive. In Indiana, perhaps the interstates could be tolled when entering the state, and then only for out-of-state plated vehicles. Either that or some sort of infrastructure fee that would be tacked on to water and sewer bills or electricity bills of Indiana residents.

[NWI_Irish96]

Also in the signage plans for the future Exit 143, US 52 will be signed for Lafayette. That's an interesting choice. It makes sense but I would think I-65 would still be the faster route to Lafayette time wise.

I had a bad feeling that the I-70 plans would get truncated so the widening takes place only around Richmond. It looks like the same thing that happened with I-65 between Scottsburg and Memphis. I have no idea what the financial situation is like with INDOT but it seems that widening I-65 and I-70 across the state will take a very long time. I wonder if the General Assembly could pass something to fund the widening of the two highways specifically to speed up the process?

I personally think that eventually we will all have to just accept that most freeways in America will need to be tolled in order to maintain them. 

Yes, the cost to states to maintain the interstate system is becoming prohibitive. In Indiana, perhaps the interstates could be tolled when entering the state, and then only for out-of-state plated vehicles. Either that or some sort of infrastructure fee that would be tacked on to water and sewer bills or electricity bills of Indiana residents.

Toll every vehicle. 1 cent per mile per axle for the first two axles. 25 cents per mile per axle for each additional axle.

[silverback1065]

tolling is honestly the only reasonable answer. adding all these piecemeal taxes is just a bandaid. I hate tolls as much as the next person but it works. I would say remove existing taxes for roads and just use tolls.

[ITB]

I had a bad feeling that the I-70 plans would get truncated so the widening takes place only around Richmond. It looks like the same thing that happened with I-65 between Scottsburg and Memphis.

The project to widen I-65 in Clark County to three lanes in each direction is still active. According to INDOT's 18-month letting list, bids for that project (Contract R-41529) will be opened March 12, 2025. The contract is being rebid because the sole bid received in either late 2023 or early 2024 was substantially over the engineer's cost estimate. They tried again a month later, and again were unable to award the contract due to INDOT contract letting rules, as the bid was again over the engineer's estimate. Let's hope the third attempt in March is successful.

The project to widen I-65 will extend from 2.78 miles south of SR 160 to the SR 56 interchange. The contract will be awarded under a DBBV (Design Build Best Value) delivery method. 

 

[JREwing78]

tolling is honestly the only reasonable answer. adding all these piecemeal taxes is just a bandaid. I hate tolls as much as the next person but it works. I would say remove existing taxes for roads and just use tolls.

The Feds could raise fuel taxes and impose Federal registration fees on vehicles not using gas or diesel. That's far less paperwork and bureaucracy than setting up a bazillion toll road entities, and debating over which version of what transponder will work with 80% of them, with the other 20% doing their own thing.

[mgk920]

tolling is honestly the only reasonable answer. adding all these piecemeal taxes is just a bandaid. I hate tolls as much as the next person but it works. I would say remove existing taxes for roads and just use tolls.

The Feds could raise fuel taxes and impose Federal registration fees on vehicles not using gas or diesel. That's far less paperwork and bureaucracy than setting up a bazillion toll road entities, and debating over which version of what transponder will work with 80% of them, with the other 20% doing their own thing.

just toll the vehicles based on how much energy they use, The more and heavier the vehicle that one drives, the more the driver pays. Sounds pretty easy to implement, too! 

Mike

[ITB]

tolling is honestly the only reasonable answer. adding all these piecemeal taxes is just a bandaid. I hate tolls as much as the next person but it works. I would say remove existing taxes for roads and just use tolls.

The Feds could raise fuel taxes and impose Federal registration fees on vehicles not using gas or diesel. That's far less paperwork and bureaucracy than setting up a bazillion toll road entities, and debating over which version of what transponder will work with 80% of them, with the other 20% doing their own thing.

Motor vehicle registration is a state duty, not the federal government, aside from federal vehicles. Each state has its own rules and regulations concerning vehicle registration. To be sure, the federal government could raise fuel taxes and then pass those additional monies back to the states. But that's not solving the problem at hand, namely that revenue from fuel taxes is shrinking due to increased fuel economy of vehicles and the increasing adoption of non-gasoline and non-diesel vehicles.

There is no simple solution to this problem, which is only going to become more pressing as electric vehicles become more common.

States are going to need additional revenue to maintain their roads properly. No one silver bullet is going to fix this revenue shortage.

One option for states is to impose a significant registration fee on electric vehicles, based on miles driven each year. $300, $500, or $1000 could be fee points, depending on the make of the vehicle and usage. Tolling interstates and other major roads also has to be part of the solution. For instance, Indiana could toll non-state plated vehicles a fee to use Indiana roads. Every time a vehicle enters Indiana via an interstate or a US highway, like US 31, they would pay a toll. $5, for instance, for a two-axle vehicle, and $20 for all others. After the toll is paid, the vehicle is free to use Indiana roads as much as they wish to. But if they leave the state and return, another toll will be charged. Only 15 to 20 toll facilities would be necessary to implement this plan.

Another option to fund state roads, which I mentioned in a previous post, is an infrastructure fee, tacked on to water and sewer bills or electricity bills, or both. Everyone uses the roads to some extent even if they don't own, rent, or have access to a vehicle. Bicyclists use roads and trails — that's infrastructure. Those who ride busses are indirectly using the roads. This infrastructure fee could begin as a modest fee, for instance $5 or $7 per month, large enough to bring in significant revenue, but not high enough to sting consumers.

To conclude, revenue to maintain the roads in Indiana and elsewhere will likely come from a variety of sources, including fuel taxes, registration fees, tolls, and, perhaps, an infrastructure fee. Again, there is no one silver bullet to solve the future growing revenue shortfalls.

[ITB]

Here's some Indiana road history facts, taken from INDOT's History webpage.

Historic Highway Facts

• Construction of the National Road (U.S. 40) through Indiana began in 1829.
• Construction of the Michigan Road (U.S.421) began in 1830.
• Legislation encouraging private companies to build macadamized or gravel roads in Indiana was passed in 1852.
• Indiana counties were authorized to construct roads with taxes on roadside property beginning in 1877.
• Construction of the Lincoln Highway (U.S. 30) began in 1913.
• The first interstate built in Indiana was the first section of State Road 420, which later became I-80/I-94 in northern Indiana, opening in 1952.
• The Indiana Toll Road was established in 1951 and constructed between 1954 and 1956.
• I-74 was the first interstate to cross Indiana. The first section opened in 1960 and the final section opened in 1967.
• Construction of I-465, which circles Marion County in central Indiana, started in 1959. The first section opened in 1961; the final section was completed in 1970.
• The final sections of I-65 and I-70 through downtown Indianapolis were completed in 1976.
• The final section of I-69 in Indiana, stretching from the Michigan state line to Evansville, was completed in August 2024.

Source: INDOT History webpage

[pianocello]

• The final section of I-69 in Indiana, stretching from the Michigan state line to Evansville, was completed in August 2024 approximately 2031 when the bridge over the Ohio River was opened to traffic.

INDOT always seems to forget about this one. I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of finishing I-69 in the Indianapolis area, but the whole thing's still not done yet.

[ITB]

• The final section of I-69 in Indiana, stretching from the Michigan state line to Evansville, was completed in August 2024 approximately 2031 when the bridge over the Ohio River was opened to traffic.

INDOT always seems to forget about this one. I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of finishing I-69 in the Indianapolis area, but the whole thing's still not done yet.

With all due respect, it's improper to quote a forum member's post, and then edit that quote. The information you regrettably modified was taken directly from an INDOT webpage, which I linked to above. I realize what you're trying to say, and everyone else does too, but it's highly questionable, unethical really, to edit a quote to suit your own purposes.

[Moose]

Besides, The Indiana portions of the ORX 69 project will be done in 2026. Not 2031. Indiana is going to build it ahead of the bridge project.

Admittedly it will lead to nowhere until the bridge is done, but Indiana will have built its section.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-3-indiana/

There is a whole thread for that part.

[paulthemapguy]

Besides, The Indiana portions of the ORX 69 project will be done in 2026. Not 2031. Indiana is going to build it ahead of the bridge project.

Admittedly it will lead to nowhere until the bridge is done, but Indiana will have built its section.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-3-indiana/

There is a whole thread for that part.

(image omitted)

Does this at least mean that Indiana and Kentucky have reached a consensus on the design of the crossing? If so, that's progress and a bit of good news in itself.

[silverback1065]

Besides, The Indiana portions of the ORX 69 project will be done in 2026. Not 2031. Indiana is going to build it ahead of the bridge project.

Admittedly it will lead to nowhere until the bridge is done, but Indiana will have built its section.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-3-indiana/

There is a whole thread for that part.

(image omitted)

Does this at least mean that Indiana and Kentucky have reached a consensus on the design of the crossing? If so, that's progress and a bit of good news in itself.

I was on the impression that it's currently in design. Is it not?

[pianocello]

• The final section of I-69 in Indiana, stretching from the Michigan state line to Evansville, was completed in August 2024 approximately 2031 when the bridge over the Ohio River was opened to traffic.

INDOT always seems to forget about this one. I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of finishing I-69 in the Indianapolis area, but the whole thing's still not done yet.

With all due respect, it's improper to quote a forum member's post, and then edit that quote. The information you regrettably modified was taken directly from an INDOT webpage, which I linked to above. I realize what you're trying to say, and everyone else does too, but it's highly questionable, unethical really, to edit a quote to suit your own purposes.

Fair point, sorry about that. I knew the original statement was INDOT's and not yours, but I should have acknowledged that more clearly.

As far as I have heard, there have been no changes to the progress of the ORX bridge design. Sections 1 and 3 are still under construction, and I think Section 2 is somewhere in the design process.

[silverback1065]

Indiana and Kentucky are the 1st 2 states to complete their sections of 69. Tennessee I bet will be next, followed by Texas. I don't think Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana will ever finish their portions.

[Revive 755]

Indiana and Kentucky are the 1st 2 states to complete their sections of 69. Tennessee I bet will be next, followed by Texas. I don't think Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana will ever finish their portions.

As long as it took Tennessee just to complete the bypass of Union City, I wouldn't rule out Texas managing to get all of their portions done first.

[hobsini2]

Indiana and Kentucky are the 1st 2 states to complete their sections of 69. Tennessee I bet will be next, followed by Texas. I don't think Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana will ever finish their portions.

Actually, Michigan is the first but I got what you meant. 

[Moose]

Indiana and Kentucky are the 1st 2 states to complete their sections of 69. Tennessee I bet will be next, followed by Texas. I don't think Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana will ever finish their portions.

I predict that we will end up with a situation where I-69 reaches Memphis and is complete, this will be enough to get long haul traffic to start using the road, and then Texas simply builds interstate to Texakana, and it's called done..