I-69/SR-37 Corridor Study Team
The Corradino Group
11 S. Meridian St., Suite 230
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Dear Study Team:
I am writing to offer my comments on the I-69/SR 37 corridor study. I attended the public meeting at Conner Prairie on March 13th to obtain more information about the project. My attendance stemmed more from a general interest in transportation planning than in specific concerns about the project (as you can probably tell from my return address). However, I believe that the relevance of my comments comes from their accuracy (or lack thereof), rather than the particular zip code I happen to dwell in. And of course transportation decisions in one part of the region affect other areas as well, particularly in light of ISTEA's mandate of regional transportation planning.
First let me say that I left the meeting a bit disappointed in the lack of information conveyed. I had expected that a fairly detailed presentation was in the works. I was very surprised that there were almost no specifics available. Thirty one months of the corridor study are behind us (more than 90% of the total) and less than three months remain before a final report is to be issued, yet not even one design (or design alternative) for a single interchange was presented. Indeed, even the route selection was not yet finalized. If all these decisions truly have yet to be made, I wonder it is really feasible to have a final report completed by the end of May.
Of course I could be wrong about the level of progress. I completely understand why you would not want to comment on a design before it is finalized, particularly when issues of demolishing homes for right of way expansion are concerned. I have seen new/expanded freeways referred to as the nuclear bomb of civic planning. You list 156 apartments to be destroyed, along with 25 homes and 54 businesses in alternative A' (Corradino, 14). With the exception of the number of houses, these are not exactly round figures, as someone mentioned at the meeting. You obviously know precisely which 54 businesses would have to be relocated. There is little need to arouse concerns (or explosive, violent rage) among local residents or business owners when the plans might be altered substantially.
However, as a result of not having much detail to comment on, my own remarks will necessarily be of a general nature. They will also doubtlessly be off base in many areas because of this lack of information or because of my lack of knowledge in certain areas of highway planning.
On first seeing the handout from the meeting I was taken aback at the huge scope of the proposed project. Fourteen lanes on I-69. Ten lanes on SR 37. A $600 million dollar price tag. A project of this size would make I-69 perhaps the widest expressway in America. A five mile stretch of Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway is the only road in the entire United States I have ever seen with that many lanes. (Admittedly, I have never driven in Los Angeles, which may have expressways that wide). Certainly this would do the job of handling the traffic volumes in Indianapolis for the next 25 years.
The obvious problem, of course, is funding. As was pointed out in the meeting, there is not enough money in the entire state of Indiana to pay for this full project. If the Indianapolis area had this project as its sole priority between now and 2020, it might indeed be possible to implement it. However, that would mean sacrificing nearly every other expansion project between now and then, something that clearly cannot be done.
In light of the relative impossibility of ever implementing the full recommended improvements, the results of the study are little more than pie in the sky. I realize that this solution represents an idealized version of that corridor and that probably even you don't believe all of this will be implemented in the next 25 years. Perfection should always be the goal, but at least as important as coming up with the perfect plan is coming up with a realistic plan. Getting the most benefit from the available dollar is critical for this project in light of the many other major needs in the Indianapolis area, such as improvements to I-465 and the US 31 corridor.
I think then, that the most important outputs of the study are (or should be):
I have a few suggestions for what should be included in the realistic plan. Keep in mind that these statements are based on little or no information about the design and cost of the various segments and components of the project.
1). Eliminate all collector/distributor lanes on I-69 and SR 37. I make this recommendation on probable benefit/cost. In the MPO Long Range Plan (LRP), the cost of widening I-69 to eight lanes from I-465 to SR 37 is estimated at $79.6 million dollars (Appendix C, Table 6, page 5). The cost of adding two C/D lanes to the same segment is estimated at $215.2 million (ibid.). According to comments I heard at the public meeting, the corridor study recommends three C/D lanes, surely at a greater cost than two. And this does not even include the C/D lanes on SR 37 proposed in the corridor study. (These were also mentioned at the meeting).
I believe that substantial cost savings can be achieved by not including C/D lanes in the realistic proposal. Assuming an eight lane I-69 from SR 37 to 82nd St and a 10 lane I-69 from 82nd St to I-465, the volume/capacity ratios for the roadway are summarized in the table below. I have added 1994 statistics from selected segments of I-465 for comparison:
| Route | Segment | Year | AADT* | Capacity** | V/C Ratio
| I-465 | Keystone/Allisonville | 1994 | 126,740 | 105,000 | 1.21
| I-465 | Allisonville/I-69 | 1994 | 123,610 | 105,000 | 1.18
| I-465 | I-69/56th | 1994 | 138,850 | 105,000 | 1.32
| I-69 | I-465/82nd | 2020 | 169,415 | 175,000 | 0.97
| I-69 | 82nd/96th | 2020 | 180,414 | 140,000 | 1.29
| I-69 | 96th/SR 37 | 2020 | 178,267 | 140,000 | 1.27
| |
As you can see, with my proposed configuration, V/C ratios on I-69 will be approximately the same as current V/C ratios in the northeast quadrant of I-465. These equate to a LOS of F for essentially all segments. At the meeting, a LOS of F was described as a "total meltdown". I do not believe that description accurately portrays the situation on I-465 today. Yes, there is daily congestion on I-465, particularly around the Keystone Ave interchange, but it is certainly not a total meltdown. The congestion is for brief periods only, and traffic continues to move, albeit at a reduced rate of speed. People from most larger metro areas would consider I-465 traffic a welcome change from their normal commutes.
I do not believe that spending in excess of $200 million dollars to make traffic on I-69 flow better than today's I-465 makes sense. Certainly it would be worthwhile if funding were unlimited and the I-69 corridor was the only need, but that is not case here.
My I-69 lane commendations for a realistically fundable plan are:
One other advantage of this approach other than cost is that it will substantially reduce right of way requirements. I think this can probably be implemented without demolishing any roadside improvements.
2). Either upgrade SR 37 to a true freeway or make only minimal improvements. SR 37 is already a limited access expressway. If it is prohibitively expensive to upgrade it to a true freeway, then only minimal improvements should be made. Again, this is for benefit/cost reasons, as well as for safety reasons.
Failure to eliminate all grade crossings on SR 37 inevitably means stoplights. If many expensive improvements are made to channel traffic more efficiently onto SR 37, but a handful of stoplights remain, then traffic will only massively backup at these stoplights, effectively eliminating any benefits from the improvements. Additionally, if grade crossings exist without stoplights, traffic turning onto or crossing SR 37 will create a safety hazard.
The preferred solution is obviously to upgrade SR 37 to a true freeway. I cannot estimate what that is projected to cost, however, because I do not have the data. Therefore, I am presenting two sets of recommendations. The first is for upgrading to a freeway. I believe this should be implemented if can be done with a cost of less than $50-75 million dollars (which strikes me as unlikely). If the costs run much higher than that, then I propose a second set of more modest improvements.
Preferred improvements to SR 37:
Minimal improvements to SR 37:
As for the preferred alignment along the north end of the study area, I prefer option 2, the new alignment. At the meeting, it was stated that this allowed for a better roadway design. Additionally, I recommend purchasing sufficient right of way at all access points north of SR 32 to build interchanges at a future date. This leaves open the possibility of upgrading that section of SR 37 to a freeway at some future date without expensive right of way acquisition and controversial demolitions. This protective buying would also be easier to implement along the option 2 alignment because of the lack of existing and proposed development along that route.
According to the LRP, only $9.8 million dollars is allocated to improvements on north leg of SR 37 (Appendix C, Table 6, Page 5). Since the LRP planning scope ends at 146th St, I am assuming that some additional funding is available to continue the widening north of that point. Even so, there is probably not enough money allocated to implement these improvements. I believe that they are still financially feasible, however, if money is diverted from the proposed I-69 C/D lanes to fund them.
3). Only implement selected interchange improvements. Though no specifics were made available at the meeting, it was implied that virtually all I-69 interchanges are to be completely redesigned and reconstructed. The phrase "loops and flyovers" was repeatedly used, so I am assuming that no diamond type interchanges will remain. Again, while this is certainly the preferred approach, each interchange rebuilt in this manner is likely to cost tens of millions of dollars. This is money that is most likely not available.
My priorities for interchange improvements would be:
These recommendations leave the interchanges at 82nd St and 96th St substantially as is. With commercial development crushing in on all sides of those interchanges, I think it would be politically difficult and very expensive to rebuild those interchanges to the way they should be.
4). ITS and TSM improvements should be strongly be considered as part of the final recommendations. I was a bit disappointed to see that such potentially worthwhile items as HOV lanes were lumped in with ludicrous ideas like double decking I-69 during the presentation. Items such as HOV lanes and ramp metering have the potential to have a beneficial impact in the corridor study area. Though adding HOV lanes has only a fraction of the congestion relief potential as adding general purpose travel lanes does, designating HOV lanes costs only a fraction of the amount to implement.
Many cities are implementing ITS type of systems. These include places like Atlanta, Cincinnati, and even Lake County, IN (the Borman Expressway ITS project). These projects recognize that there is insufficient funds to continually widen roads to accommodate traffic demand and so we must use the existing roadway more efficiently. I am not suggesting the ITS/TSM elements by themselves are going to solve anything. But in light of the hefty price tag associated with the full recommendations of the corridor study, these elements, in conjunction with scaled back road improvements, might prove a more realistic approach to addressing the northeast area's traffic needs.
My recommendations for ITS/TSM are below. Keep in mind that all of these are dependent on a study showing that they have the potential to improve traffic flow.
The reasoning behind all of the above recommendations is simple. The Indianapolis area has many major transportation needs and very limited funding for them. Indeed, the LRP shows almost $1 billion in unfunded transportation needs in the region for state projects alone (Appendix C, Table 6). And this does not even include many of the recommendations of the I-69 corridor study. It also includes only limited improvements to the US 31 corridor. It is imperative that the I-69 study team keep in mind all of the region's needs and the very real funding constraints when developing a list of recommended improvements. Only the most necessary of projects should be programmed for implementation in the I-69 area unless major new funding becomes available. This will ensure that adequate (or at least some) funds are available to implement improvements in other areas.
There are some other recommendations and points I wish to make that are not specifically related to developing a financially realistic plan. They are, in no particular order:
1). INDOT and local governments should implement an aggressive protective buying strategy to prevent new commercial and residential development from making road improvements in the corridor study area prohibitively expensive. I believe this is especially important along SR 37, which is undergoing a rapid transformation into a commercial corridor.
2). Local governments should enact policies that do everything possible to preserve right of way and prevent development too close to highways planned for improvement. An example would be dramatically increasing the setback requirement for any building fronting a highway classified as a freeway or limited access expressway. These governments should also be aggressive about convincing developers to donate land for right of way prior to development and in assessing impact fees to help pay for road improvements. A good example of this is in Hendricks County, where developer Mark Sanders donated right of way 200 feet wide and a mile long through his Shiloh Crossing development to accommodate the new North-South Corridor. (This information is from an Indianapolis Star article that I do not have the exact date and page citations for).
3). Transit should be given more serious consideration as an alternative. Based on comments made at the public meeting, I do not believe transit was seriously considered as a solution. It appears to have been rejected on a basis of the light rail study that was part of the development of the LRP. That study rejected a four quadrant light rail system that had a price tag of $683 million, yet only increased transit ridership by 17,000 people per day (LRP, pp. 7-8). I do not dispute that decision or the results of the study which led to those conclusions. I do, however, believe that a study of a single route commuter rail (not light rail) service along the former Norfolk and Western line might show different results.
Before the year 2020, the Indianapolis area indeed might be able to support some type of commuter rail service. The Indianapolis Comprehensive Rail Study mentions a Nashville, TN area study on commuter rail transit (p 65). The Nashville study preliminary results showed several good candidate routes for commuter rail by the year 2015. This is for a metropolitan area that is smaller than Indianapolis. Additionally, it may cost substantially less to develop a commuter rail system than to widen roads. The Rail Study gives an estimated price tag of only $30-40 million per line for commuter rail (p. 65), though my impression is that no real analysis went into that figure.
It would certainly take a major study to determine whether it is feasible to implement commuter rail in the next 25 years. I do not believe that implementation should directly be recommended by the I-69 corridor study. However, I do think there should at least be a strong recommendation that the feasibility of commuter rail be studied.
4). In an item related to transit, I think all proposed roadway improvements that cross the former Norfolk and Western Railroad should be designed with enough horizontal and vertical clearance to accommodate at least double trackage on that line, and preferably four tracks. This would allow for simultaneous bi-directional commuter or light rail service utilizing that corridor. With four tracks, both types of rail service could be supported in the same corridor.
5). The map of existing plus committed road projects in the corridor study area shows Allisonville Rd having 7 lanes from 96th St. to SR 32. I am not aware of any committed projects which call for that number of lanes. The LRP calls for only a 4 lane divided roadway for Allisonville north of 96th St. (Appendix C, Table 6).
6). The study should include a comprehensive list of potential funding sources for improvements along the I-69/SR 37 corridor. This may already be included, though I do not recall anything specific being said about this at the meeting. One (surely controversial) method of funding the improvements would be to turn SR 37 into a toll road. I do not think it would be possible to turn an existing free interstate highway into a tollway, but it might be possible for SR 37. This has many things to recommend about it: only the people who use the highway pay for it, limited federal funding becomes much less of an issue, etc. The major downside is the probable negative public reaction. And it may be illegal too. But I do think it merits a look. The year 2020 traffic volumes are similar to the estimated travel volumes on the 6.2 mile Georgia 400 tollway in Atlanta. That road was projected to carry 60,000 cars a day at $0.50 apiece when it opened and it cost $274 million to build (Beasley).
Also, I have a few comments on the public meeting itself too.
1). The maps included with the handout, though they did not show any details of lane or interchange configurations, packed a tremendous amount of information into a small space without sacrificing readability. I liked the format. The only major thing I would have added is some marking indicating which segments of SR 37 were recommended for upgrading to a true freeway and which are to remain a limited access expressway.
2). The information presented at the meeting on how benefit/cost is calculated and the types of items that go into the benefit figure was very interesting. I was already familiar with it, but most people in the audience probably were not.
3). The frequently screaming children from another event at Conner Prairie were distracting. Obviously this was not your fault. For the next meeting, I would recommend specifically requesting that no children's event be scheduled simultaneously in that facility.
4). All of the study team participants were more than happy to discuss the project (so long as no specific questions were asked about interchanges, lane configurations, or right of way acquisition). There was ample time for informal discussions after the presentation.
On the whole, I would say you have done a very good job with study. The amount of effort required to produce this type of information is surely nothing short of Herculean. I certainly wouldn't want to have to project traffic volumes 25 years into the future, or estimate reduced accident costs from a road improvement, or itemize all impacted wetlands in the study area. I believe that the information collected will serve as an effective guide to making transportation decisions in the corridor study area.
I doubt that I will attend the final public meeting on the corridor study, but would be interested in seeing the final report. Please do not add me to your mailing list, but if a copy of the final report could be sent to me when it is complete, I would appreciate it. If not, I will contact INDOT to obtain one through the normal channels when the study is complete. I did sign up on the sheet at the meeting with my address. If that added me to the mailing list, I would appreciate it if you would remove me.
I will conclude with a brief biographical note. I am sure you don't receive many letters of this length from citizens. I don't want you to think I am a special interest representative or lobbyist because I am not. I'm just someone who happens to be interested in highways and transportation planning. I've lived in places as diverse as Laconia, Indiana (population around 64) and Chicago, Illinois and picked up an interest in roads from all the time I have had to spend driving.. Indeed, I still spend most weekdays in Chicago where the consulting company I work for has me staffed on a project and I spend long hours on expressways that would exasperate even the hardiest of Indianapolis commuters. I am not looking forward to another construction season commuting weekends back and forth on I-65. I work in information systems consulting, not transportation consulting.
Feel free to consider this letter as informal rather than formal feedback. If you have any reaction or response to what I have said, I would appreciate hearing it, but don't feel obligated to write back. I know you are hard at work finishing up the study.
Thank you for your time in reading this rather lengthy letter. Thank you also for all the hard work in putting together this study.
Sincerely,
Aaron M. Renn
References:
Beasley, David. Missing Link Wouldn't Die. The Atlanta Journal Constitution, August 1, 1993. Page H1, H4.
Corradino Group. I-69/SR-37 Corridor Study March 13 public meeting handout., March 1996
Indiana Department of Transportation Traffic Statistics Section. 1994 Interstate Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development. Comprehensive Rail Study, December 15, 1995.
Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development. Indianapolis Regional Transportation Plan: An Overview, Draft-2 (Long Range Plan), April 1995.