IBJNews

Fishers to kick in $8M toward new I-69 interchange

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fishers Town Council voted Monday to join Hamilton County in spending $10 million in local funds toward construction of an Interstate 69 exit at 106th Street.

Fishers will contribute $8 million toward the estimated $25 million cost of the new interchange. Hamilton County commissioners in October agreed to contribute $2 million to the project from the county’s major bridge fund.

“The new 106th Street exit will reap dividends in economic development and reduced travel on town streets with minimal impact to through traffic on I-69,” said Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless in a prepared statement.
 
Fishers said it will move quickly to issue a bond to finance its $8 million portion. After getting the $10 million, the Indiana Department of Transportation will begin initial planning and environmental review for the project.

With approval of by the Federal Highway Administration and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization, construction could begin on what will be called Exit 204 in 2015.

Fishers, Hamilton County and INDOT officials declined to discuss details of the agreement before Monday’s meeting.

“A 106th Street interchange is something we’ve been pursuing for quite some time, for more than two years,” said Maura Leon-Barber, town of Fishers spokeswoman, earlier Monday. “Traffic volume and congestion is obviously something that has been a concern in that area.”

The lack of an I-69 interchange at 106th Street often leads to traffic congestion at the interchanges at 96th and 116th streets, Leon-Barber said. About 110,000 vehicles travel that stretch of I-69 daily.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Sorry Fishers gal
    Should've done your homework or become an activist. You could have seen this coming 26 (or even 36) years ago. By the time you bought, the fix was already in, and the endless loop of sprawl was well on its way to consuming your little slice of heaven. Moose at the gate should've told you.
  • Double talk
    I've lived in a neighborhood at 106th and Hague for more than 16 years. We have been told all along that 106th Street was never planned to be expanded like 116th and 96th were, because of the amount of residential development along that street. Now they've decided they can wedge another highway exit in there, when the real need is for another exit between 116th and Southeastern/Campus Parkway. Between the increased traffic, road noise and "economic development" and the possibility of light rail running (but likely not stopping in a place that's walkable) on the tracks beside our neighborhood, our property values will drop like a rock. Can anyone explain why our town leaders this is a good idea to screw up so much existing residential development? Or is this another "up yours" to the voters who chose to become a city?
    • Catch up Kevin
      Kevin, it does not sound like you have ever driven on 69 in the morning or evening. It is a parking lot and is an embarrasment to the city. Urban sprawl happened a long time ago, probably before you were born. There should also be an exit at 126th street. The 37 N exit is several years too late. Lets get someone with some vision on these boards. I would take light rail downtown if it existed. The commute into and out of the city from the north side is awful and gets worse every year. Make it a priority to make alternate routes to and from downtown and that will help.
    • Comparisons
      I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other on this new interchange, but I think that it displays a serious issue in transportation funding in Indiana. When mass transit wants to spend $25 million, it gets probed and prodded and eventually they get $8M. When a new interchange gets built, it rains dollars like manna from heaven. Incredible how highway projects always seem to be adequately funded (even when grossly unnecessary) but mass transit must make do with the scrapings.
    • Not even close to a good idea
      Isn't Scott Faultless a slip and fall lawyer? With I-69 already a tangled up mess all the way from 465 North to 96th Street to 116th Street, it seems like a very bad idea to add another exit right in the middle of this disaster. Clearly, the town of Fishers wants the property tax revenue that will come from this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the town council members have already locked in some of the involved real estate, which will escalate in value. This is a project that might be good for the town council, but bad for the town residents who will have to put up with the complete traffic gridlock that will result.
    • Transportation
      Mass transit should be the focus as well.
    • More roads?
      More roads = more traffic = suburban sprawl = expanded City utilities and services = higher taxes.
      • About Time
        Interesting the Town of Fishers Council is finally on board with this project. It was needed more than 10 years ago but the Council has never supportive. I guess the recent vote to move to a city has made them realize they will now be held accountable.
      • Priorities
        Too bad we can't find any money to look at mass transit - This is way more cost effective, right?
      • Expensive Trees
        Wow, highway funding sure seems to be a recession and debt proof industry. Thank god we have grown so much as a region that we need numerous new superhighways and continuous projects for existing roadways.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

      2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

      3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

      4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

      5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

      ADVERTISEMENT