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.


  • 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

      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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

      2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

      3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

      4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

      5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....