Cutting corners on the I-69 extension

October 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels is raising eyebrows in the Evansville area for ramrodding a section of the Interstate 69 extension ahead of schedule by a whopping three years.

The 68-mile stretch from Evansville to the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Crane now is expected to be built by 2012. In other words, nearly half the distance to Indianapolis would be completed by Daniels’ final year in office.

The push is so preliminary that the Department of Transportation hasn’t started the drawings for parts of the Evansville-to-Crane leg, let alone acquired the land or permits. Still, the department’s deputy commissioner for major programs, Samuel Sarvis, told Evansville Courier & Press editors this month that the target can be met.

And the project will be done in typical Daniels fashion, the lowest cost possible. That means using the same firm to design and build the road, which will allow construction to begin when the designs aren’t so much as half-complete.

Pavement will be thin at first because planners anticipate few trucks until the entire road is finished to Indianapolis. More pavement can be added later. The decision between concrete and asphalt also will be heavily influenced by cost.

How do you feel about the plans? Many people in southwestern reaches of the state are grateful the long-discussed project is finally moving ahead. But will future taxpayers wish the state spent more money up front?

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Build it and they will come
    I think that Daniels wants to get the ball rolling. I can't blame him for that. If it doesn't get built, we will regret that in 20 years.
  • I think anything that gets the road built is good. Pavement thickness is not as big an issue now as getting it built. Adding asphalt in the top when needed will not be a big issue, and hopefully it will shut up the naysayers or at least make their arguements moot.
    • paper thin
      If you're going to build it, you have to build it right. So what's the state going to do? Are they going to have the ribbon cutting and immediately send out the construction workers to fix this thing? This makes zero sense.

      If they're really trying to save money just make I69 gravel..they can always go back and lay concrete.
    • major moves indeed
      They've been talking about I-69 in Evansville for 20 years becasue of studies and environmental delays. We have a Governor who wants to get this done, the next Gov. may not. It is much easier for foes to dealy the project again if it is not started than to stop it midway through.

    Post a comment to this blog

    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
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT