By PAULENE POPARAD
Only Wendy’s restaurant would need to be relocated if a $53.6 million
single-point urban interchange, the most expensive of three possible
alternatives, is built at Indiana 49 and Indian Boundary Road.
Several ramps at the Interstate 94/Indiana 49 interchange just north of
Indian Boundary would be modified under the first scenario, and 5.4 acres of
new right-of-way, half of it commercial land, would be acquired.
Two other alternatives, costing $35.2 million and $33.6 million each, both
would route traffic along new ramps with bridges and retaining walls, some
connecting with a rebuilt Council Drive east of Indian Boundary. These two
designs would require purchase of between 4.7 acres and 10.2 acres, all
commercial, result in no relocations but some damages would be paid.
According to Indiana Department of Transportation design engineers, each
alternate would have Indiana 49 elevated above Indian Boundary, which would
be lowered at the intersection.
The plans were unveiled at a Tuesday meeting of the Northwestern Indiana
Regional Planning Commission’s Transportation Policy Committee, which took
no action on the proposal.
Several Chesterton town officials and residents were present. It soon became
apparent their primary concerns regarding safety at the intersection, its
above-average crash rate and the lack of able and disabled pedestrian access
were competing with INDOT’s need also to weigh future levels of service in
2028 and the project’s overall cost/benefit ratio.
After the meeting, INDOT engineer Brad Steckler said, “Our initial finding
is that the interchange alternates are very expensive, much more than would
have been thought earlier, and there’s a question about the cost
effectiveness of those types of improvements.”
That observation was repeated several times during the INDOT presentation,
so much so Chesterton Town Engineer Charles Ray later said, “To me, my gut
feeling is because of the talk something may not need to be done, that may
be the way we’re heading.”
Added Town Council member Gina Darnell, present Tuesday, “My impression is (INDOT)
is not committed fully to spending the money at this intersection.”
Steckler said INDOT’s commissioner and assistant commissioners will weigh
the staff’s recommendation, still several months away, and make a final
decision later this year. If approved, interchange construction could begin
in 2008.
In the coming months, Darnell said, the town needs to maintain good contact
with INDOT. “There are factors that we can point out to them showing there
will be more of a benefit than perhaps they’re calculating. We don’t want to
make recommendations. We want to make positive comments.”
To that end, Darnell said reviewing the three interchange alternates could
be a task for the town’s revived Thoroughfare Committee. Member Joel Carney
heard the INDOT presentation. “I’m happy the state’s finally giving us some
information,” he said. “I’m a little concerned they don’t view the problem
at this intersection in the same terms we do. I guess that’s
understandable.”
INDOT engineer Karl Leet did say the Indiana 49 crash rate at Indian
Boundary of 2.57 crashes per million entering vehicle-miles is greater than
the average 1.8 crashes on similar facilities, or not good. He also said the
existing intersection is signalized and will operate at a level of service
in 2028 of “D” in the evening rush hour or at minimum acceptability because
“F” is gridlock.
Steckler said the focus is on optimizing safety at the existing intersection
and INDOT will look again at upgraded lighting and signals as well as
extending turn lanes.
Safety enhancements aside, “The town wants to see a separated grade,” said
Ray, who rated the interchange alternates as good designs.
Darnell told INDOT engineers the council is looking at extending possibly
Sand Creek Drive North or Council Drive over the railroad tracks south to
Porter Avenue. It’s a high-priority project that would allow local residents
to avoid using Indiana 49 altogether, she added. She also said the town is
talking about a possible hike/bike trail paralleling the same railroad
easement.
Later, Darnell told reporters, “We need to look at the Council Drive issue.
Perhaps we can sync it with (interchange) construction. The first alternate
would be easier for drivers to use and the other two would be very confusing
for drivers at first, but if it’s more cost-effective we may need to do some
redesign at the Kmart corner (at Indian Boundary).”
INDOT engineers showed how they use animated computer modeling to help
design the improvements and evaluate their effectiveness, taking into
account that 18 percent of Indiana 49 traffic volume is trucks. Audience
members questioned whether the data being used provides for traffic stacking
at signals, summer vacation and festival traffic, trucks running red lights
and pedestrians attempting to cross Indiana 49.
Leet said INDOT will continue to refine its modeling of a very complex site,
which includes the I-94 interchange, Indiana 49’s southbound downhill slope,
the road’s curve south of Indian Boundary, three railroads, Chubb Lake and
the Little Calumet River.
Chesterton resident Ken Keller lives in Duneland Cove and has been lobbying
for safe pedestrian access across Indiana 49 for several years. An engineer,
“They’re going at it the way you’ve got to do it. At least we’re getting
attention now,” he said.
Added Darnell, “I’m very, very happy to get this information today to see
they analyzed the existing information thoroughly and that they’re aware of
the crash rates. The alternates need to be carefully studied...now we know
where we stand. The cost/benefit analysis will be important.”
Paula Armour, a member of the town’s contracted engineers The Duneland
Group, said number-crunching isn’t the only way to analyze the need for a
grade-separated interchange. “It’s not a question of capacity; it’s a
question of safety,” she said.
Posted 1/13 2002
