Dubious Road Project of the Year Award Nominee: SR 238 Reconstruction

I get accused of being a road maximalist from time to time. Indeed, while I do think we need significant investment in new and expanded roadways, believe it or not there are projects I think aren't needed.

We have our first example of the construction season, namely the $10.8 million reconstruction of SR 238 (Greenfield Ave.) from I-69 Exit 10 to Fortville. The urban section in Fortville sounds ok, but the rural segment is dubious. Essentially this project involves reconstructing a two lane country road, as, well, a two lane country road with shoulders. That would be ok if the road were in terrible condition today and a country road would do well into the future, but neither of those is the case here. The existing road is in serviceable condition. Also, the area in question is urbanizing rapidly. While converting the roadway to an urban arterial is clearly not justified at this time, it won't be that many years into the future before it will be. The 2026 traffic projections for the recently completed Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan show average daily traffic volume of 30,410 - well more than enough to justify a four lane divided highway. In short, the two lane country road reconstruction doesn't even satisfy INDOT's own 20 year design life guideline. Additionally, I'm dubious on the need for full shoulders on most rural arterials anyway.

So why is this project being undertaken? As near as I can tell, INDOT wanted the road off their books, so they are relinquishing it to Hamilton County. Before Hamilton County would accept it, they demanded that the road be in pristine condition, hence this project. Meanwhile, Fishers plans to annex the rest of Fall Creek Township, at which point this road would become their problem.

There was a better way. Rather than spend the money now, do just the Fortville section, make spot improvements where necessary, then hand the rest of the money over to Hamilton County to spend on other, more high priority projects. Hamilton County is wondering how to pay for, for example, the rest of the Olio Road expansion south to 96th St. These funds easily would have paid for that or other critical needs. It's easy to validate that this was a better option by doing a thought experiment. If someone handed Hamilton County a $10.8 million bag of money and told them they could spend it on any project they wanted, would they have picked this one? It seems highly unlikely to me.

I'm often told that I should give my suggestions to the highway department. Well, in this case, I actually made the proposal above to INDOT, the Fishers Engineering Department, and the Hamilton County Highway Department. INDOT said that their hands were tied because they were contractually bound by the relinquishment agreement to do the work. Fishers said that since the road was in Hamilton County's jurisdiction, there was nothing they could do. The Hamilton County Highway Department told me that the county commissioners were happy with the deal they struck with the state. Everyone was extremely friendly and responsive. I've never had a government employee at a transportation agency stonewall me or treat me badly in any way, which is a tribute to their public service ethic. On the other hand, nothing changed either.

I've been submitting comments and input to proposed transportation projects for nearly a decade, and I've never once seen an example I can point to where a project was changed because of input I provided. This tends to discourage one from taking the time to write, I must say.

The year's still young, so it remains to be seen whether this project will emerge victorious at the end of the year, but right now we have our first strong contended for dubious road project of the year.