IBJNews

  • Home

Group seeks to halt spending on Ohio River bridges

Associated Press
September 21, 2012
Keywords
Energy & Environment, Environment, Government, Government & Economic Development, Interstates/Highways, Law, Lawsuits, State Government, Transportation, Distribution & Logistics
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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
    Dave in IndySeptember 21, 2012 11:04 AM
    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.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • bridges
    RonSeptember 21, 2012 10:03 AM
    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.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    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.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT