IBJNews

I-65 interchange in Greenwood delayed for year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Officials say construction of a new Interstate 65 interchange in Greenwood is being delayed for a year.

The state highway department says it hasn't been able to reach land purchase agreements with five property owners for the project at Greenwood's Worthsville Road. The agency is asking a judge to force the sales.

Greenwood development director Mark Richards tells the Daily Journal that the city is moving ahead with widening the road to four lanes in anticipation of the interchange.

State officials now plan to hire contractors in September and start construction of the interchange in the spring of 2015, with completion anticipated that year.

The project is estimated to cost about $22 million, with Greenwood paying up to $11 million of the cost.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • News Flash
    Many interchanges contain tolling facilities. It's not a new concept.
  • Isn't This Free?
    I thought the land owners were giving the land away and INDOT had found free labor and materials. After all, everyone knows "roads don't cost nothin'." I'd rather my money go towards a healthy, shared mass transit solution. Seriously, can I opt out of paying for this at all since I will NEVER use it?
  • Really Mordant
    Mordant are you saying that the new ramp should be toll? That should work quite well a toll exit and entrance ramp. Your comment proves why there are some people that must be followers.
  • What is the Problem Here?
    If this interchange were a good idea that made economic sense, then surely a private company could be relied upon to build and operate it. Why all this socialist intervention?
    • Looking forward to interchange
      I welcome the new interchange. As someone who lives along Sheek Road, I'm really hoping this will cut down on the same of the traffic along that road (as well as the Greenwood 99 exit).

    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