IBJNews

Group seeks to halt spending on Ohio River bridges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A group that opposes two new planned Ohio River bridges is asking a judge to force Indiana and Kentucky to halt spending on the projects.

The Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation made the request in a motion seeking an injunction filed Wednesday in Louisville.

The Courier-Journal of Louisville reported that the coalition wants a federal judge to stop the states from spending on the bridges until he rules on a federal lawsuit challenging the project or a new environmental report is issued.

The $2.6 billion project will build two bridges running between Kentucky and Indiana near Louisville.

The coalition argues in court documents that the bridges would cause environmental damage by clearing trees and harming wildlife and water quality along the two spans' proposed routes.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • This one's a little different
    I normally loathe enviro-nuts and other NIMBY's (I'm pro I-69, by the way) but this bridge project seems like it needs to be looked at again. I read several articles in the Star about an area on the Kentucky side that they have decided to tunnel under instead of around or instead of trying to get approva;s for a more direct route. IIRC the tunneling alone adds something like $300 million to the project. I am a bit leery of construction mixing with politics since it seems some politicians biggest supporters are highway construction and engineering firms. I wonder if this Drumanard Tunnel is just payback to the firms. I say build I-69, build these bridges but do so in the most economic fashion.
  • bridges
    Why....? Are there always people out there constantly making trouble. Do they !!! Ever think about people who wants these bridges. How much they are needed and this wildlife crap it is not gonna hurt.

    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