Public-private plan for I-69 work proves divisive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A plan to finance the cost of a section of the new Interstate 69 connection between Indianapolis and Evansville is drawing both praise and ire.

Gov. Mike Pence is getting ready to sign onto a deal with a Dutch-led contractor to construct and maintain the section between Bloomington and Martinsville, the Evansville Courier & Press reported Saturday.

Under terms of that contract, the state would make an $80 million "down payment" to the private partner, Isolux Infrastructure, which would pay the $325 million estimated for construction. Once that section of highway is complete, the state starts paying the partner $21.8 million a year for 35 years and the company maintains the highway.

Isolux is working with local contractors E&B Paving of Anderson, Force Construction Co. of Columbus and Gradex Inc. of Indianapolis.

Isolux beat three other consortiums with its proposal.

If the private developer doesn't keep the road open to traffic and up to Indiana Department of Transportation standards, the state could reduce the annual payment.

Supporters say the public-private partnership is innovative, but critics say the deal will end up costing Indiana taxpayers more in the long run.

Then-Gov. Mitch Daniels paid up front for the first phases to take the Interstate 69 extension from Evansville to Bloomington out of the $3.8 billion made off the long-term lease of the Indiana Toll Road and a traditional combination of state and federal funds.

The next section of I-69 will span 21 miles from Bloomington to Martinsville by upgrading Indiana 37 and is expected to open to traffic in 2016. The 26-mile final leg would essentially follow the path of Indiana 37 from Martinsville to Indianapolis.

Jim Tymon, with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, compared the long-term deal with buying a house.

"You have to finance and mortgage it over a number of years. I think that's what you are starting to see with transportation projects as well. States don't have the cash on hand to pay for a big project up front, so, therefore, they are looking to finance it," he told the newspaper.

But not everyone is happy with the deal.

"It's a quick easy fix for government that can't afford to build and maintain the roads that people want. By at least getting it out there, the question is, is that fair to the next generation? We have pushed off the burden to future generations, years beyond what we would be normally paying," said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington.

The agreement won't be the first of its kind in Indiana. Daniels, for example, privatized part of the state welfare system, the Indiana Toll Road and management of the Hoosier Lottery.


  • We should do it ourselves.
    without getting in to the merits of the entire I69 project I can't help but wonder why we don't bond for the project and get it over with. Oh, I forgot that would require a tax increase to cover the bond sinking fund & we can't do that even though it would be the least expensive way to go and offer the best protection for Indian tax payers.
  • You Asked For It
    Be careful what you wish for. How many people hailed this project as a godsend for the State, for employment, for a quick route to Evansville? Now that the cost of this godsend is becoming clearer, people are complaining. Are people so naïve to think that this project was going to be free or that taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for it? That's funny.
  • Standards?
    "If the private developer doesn't keep the road open to traffic and up to Indiana Department of Transportation standards, the state could reduce the annual payment." IDOT has standards? Who knew, what with the deplorable condition of Indiana roads.
  • Bribes
    I bet Pence is getting a huge donation for his "Presidential" campaign fund in the near future. In Indiana we don't just accept bribes, we demand them.
  • They "Don't Have to Maintain it for 35 Years" IF...
    They "Don't Have to Maintain it for 35 Years" IF the contractor actually does what they're supposed to. If not, the state's highway personnel will have to deal with it.
  • I think your forgetting the fact the State does not have to maintain the road for that 35 years. In that time, the road would have to be rebuilt at least once and repaved numerous times. While it would be nice to be able to pay cash for the road, like I would love to pay cash for my house or my car, sometimes the money is not in hand. As cars become more efficient anduse fuels other than gas, the ability for states to pay cash for roads is going to be harder.
    • Wow 2
      Mafia Saying "You can steal more money with a suitcase than a gun"
    • WOW
      Lets see 21.8 x 35 years = 763 million plus 80 million down and we are paying 843 million for a 325 million stretch of highway. Gotta love those math geniuses who put this deal together. Someone is dipping into the till here. This gives truth to the Mafia
    • Did you read the post?
      "Isolux is working with local contractors E&B Paving of Anderson, Force Construction Co. of Columbus and Gradex Inc. of Indianapolis." Just because a Dutch firm was selected doesn't mean Hoosier companies won't be involved in the construction and maintenance.
    • I-69
      And why was there no Consortium of Indiana companies considered best for this project? Why was it handed on a silver platter to a foreign consortium? How much is going into Pence's pockets? This is another crooked deal that will cost Indiana taxpayers millions.

      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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

      2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

      3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

      4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

      5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.