IBJNews

State to widen Interstate 65 south of Southport

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Greenwood-area commuters should have more breathing room on Interstate 65 after a highway-widening project planned by the Indiana Department of Transportation.

INDOT will be able to expand a section of I-65 from Southport to Franklin after Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill releasing $200 million in highway construction money, spokesman Will Wingfield said.

The state also plans to expand I-65 in the Lafayette area from State Road 38 to State Road 26, he said. The start dates of each project weren’t immediately available.

The I-65 expansion on the south side would run from Southport Road to State Road 44 near Franklin, a stretch with poor pavement conditions and heavy truck traffic at times. The highway has two lanes running in each direction from Franklin to Greenwood and three from Greenwood to Southport.

The project is still under design, but Wingfield said INDOT is looking to add lanes by maximizing the existing right-of-way. Lanes could be added in the 60-foot-wide grassy median, or in the auxiliary ramp lanes along the outside, he said.

The $200 million was a compromise on Pence’s push to take $400 million out of the Major Moves 2020 Trust Fund, created last year during the General Assembly’s budget session.

Pence and House leaders argued that the money is needed now, but Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, cut the amount in half based on the state's financial condition. The other $200 million could be released after a review of the state's finances this December by the State Budget Committee.

INDOT would spend the additional money, if granted, on Interstate 69 northeast of State Road 37 and 116th Street, and on I-65 in southern Indiana, Wingfield said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • i agree
    much of the traffic backups and dangerous driving conditions are due to trucks utilizing both driving lanes heavily.
  • @Matt
    I don't think comparing our highways to other highways is a worthwhile exercise. Urban highways contribute to a multitude of societal problems and take money away from transit options that help people get around and provide positive externalities. Let's compare our transit system as a whole to something actually good, instead of other highways.
  • Truck Lane?
    If all this growth is driven by the trucking industry, why don't we make them pay into a fund to create truck only lanes on area interstates?
    • behind the times
      Listen to all you transit Nazis. Not winning any support for your fancy trains by being hateful. I65 is already behind the times when it comes to urban/suburban interstates. It has little to do with car traffic and more to do with the indy area and Indiana in general being a trucking hub. Obviously none of you drive on I65 south of downtown. They are finally updating I65/465 interchange (which is one of the busiest in the country) about 15 years too late. I65 is dangerous on the southside because of all the trucks. Look at any other major city in the country - even places that are sacred to transit hipsters such as Austin and Portland. Do you think the busiest highway in the area is only 2 lanes a few miles away from their central city? nope.
    • Just When I Moved Away
      Bummer. Now, I wish I hadn't moved. Nothing draws young professionals in to a city more than additional money for widening highways. We don't want transit or urban living. We want to be in our cars at all times!
    • Hooray for Automobiles!
      I can't wait to take my car and explore every square inch of this beautiful new addition to our great state. Hooray for Indiana! What can we pave over next?
    • roads roads roads
      The hypocrisy of Mike Pence and the rest of our Ruralpublican legislators is amazing. There is all the money in the world for roads and none at all for mass transit.
    • $200 million??
      Wait a second, I thought roads were free?!?
    • referendum
      Will there need to be a referendum by the region to delegate this transportation funding increase? The spending of $200 million should be put up to a vote in a similar manner to what is being required for the Indianapolis metro region's enhanced public transportation and roadway plan. Of course, if the state funded transportation projects based on need then a referendum for either project shouldn't be needed.

    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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

    ADVERTISEMENT