Section 5 Consultants Remove Lanes past Bloomington

Stop I-69 Interstate - COUNT US! County Under New Terrain I-69

Section 5 consultant's new proposed cross sections.
Tier 1 Federal Highway approved cross sections.

From our larger e-mail exchanges with the Bloomington Herald Times editor, we present this focus on the "New Proposed section 5 Cross Sections for I-69 past Bloomington:

COUNT US! OPINION: NEW FLAT W/O FRONTAGE ROADS CROSS SECTIONS EVEN WORSE.

The reason for the raised interstate was so that the turn off lanes could come off over the frontage roads while maintaining diamond rather than loop exits. The foot print for all of this is only 90 feet wider than existing SR 37. (See the table on the "/3cmonroe" link above.) Raising the roadway would preserve many of the existing businesses. Preserving stop lights on the off ramps would be required, cloverleaf ingress/ egress would have been safer and more efficient but more land intense.

The future ability to clear these stop lighted crossing points should be carefully questioned now! Section 5 consultants', Michael Baker Inc., new proposed plans makes congestion and safety worse than the FEIS proposed 12 lanes.   The new Baker plan as shown would result in frequent backups on to the high speed interstate as already happens at times on SR 37. For these reasons, the Section 5 plans are perhaps unusable even if they are taken through the current study process.

If built, surely our local government would have to fund similar capacity lost by the removal of the frontage roads. East: Adams Street/ Patterson is the first North/ South continuous through street otherwise and Curry Pike/ Leonard Springs to the West. This proposed plan would render navigating Bloomington's west side an unacceptable mess.

While claiming "new numbers", the consultants have chosen to preserve the number of interstate lanes (4 per side) while eliminating our frontage roads. Since three interstate lanes per side is the minimum from Bloomington to Indianapolis, four Interstate lanes per side would likely be justified, but they are moving the through traffic onto the center two lanes and forcing local traffic to two walled away outer lanes at interstate speeds. That is , they are proposing 2 through lanes and 2 interstate lanes with access to exit lanes.

Michael Baker Inc. thus far has ignored details of new problems for our community from fewer exits, growth, traffic backups/ congestion, effects on local businesses of the wider highway foot print, and drainage/ run off from reduction of permeable surface area.

Too, we mention here only briefly the toll issue: Because the study consulting firms contracts where granted pre Mitch Daniels' toll road/ privatization proposals, they immediately scoff at any mention of a toll or privately owned infrastructure that is now taking shape.   Their plans are not for a toll or privately held interstate, period.

If I understand you correctly, one of your key points is that you are showing
and talking about what is on the documents at this time. Wendy Vachet is
talking about how she believes the road should end up. You're saying they
are planning a 12-lane urban interstate, which is the only thing down on
paper. She's saying what's on paper will change.

We hope you are by now understanding:

Since the July 20th section 5 new Cross Sections were unveiled, we are challenging the consistency of the study.
Before July 20th, the 8+4 lane raised urban interstate was the only plan known to exist. That was the INFORMATION that we were presenting frequently and widely in as much detail as allowed for a year. It was the only plan at time that we wrote the last letter published by your newspaper.
We are now visualizing both the old and the new proposed infrastructures and making comment on what can be predicted in either case. Really Bob, all we are trying to do is help people "see" what is being planned for our community. It is a strategy to prevent boondoggle I-69 by accurately unveiling the details and facts.

Presentation Tier 1 EIS/ Federal Highway administration approved cross sections for I-69 has been labeled "disinformation intended to mislead and frighten people" by the Bloomington Herald Times.

Related links:
Discussion of the H-T charge of "disinformation"
Section 5 Consultants' Proposed Reduction in Lanes
Revive 65 provides a personal warning
Raised I-69 is no more threatening, photographically proved.
What would I-69 look like according to the Tier 1 Record of Decision?