IBJNews

Monroe County board to consider adding I-69 to plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Opponents of Indiana's nearly $3 billion Interstate 69 extension are urging a southern Indiana planning board to keep the highway out of its transportation plan despite the state's warning that doing so could endanger federal funding for local projects.

In May, a committee of the Bloomington Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization approved a revised local highway plan that omitted Monroe County's portion of I-69, citing concerns about how it will be funded, its environmental impact and the location of interchanges.

The Indiana Department of Transportation has asked the panel to add this section of I-69 back in and resubmit its plan.

With the planning group scheduled to meet again Friday, opponents of the 142-mile Evansville-to-Indianapolis highway are pressing the panel to hold firm and keep I-69 out of the plan.

Monroe County Council member Sam Allison and other highway opponents are also urging county residents to attend the meeting and speak out against adding the highway back into the plan.

"I can't see what it is about 'no' that INDOT does not understand. I invite the citizens to attend the meeting and tell INDOT, once again, and hopefully for the last time, 'no' to I-69," Allison said in a statement released this week by two groups opposed to the highway.

INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield said the Monroe County group's existing transportation improvement plan runs through 2013 and includes the highway. He said a new plan that would cover the period through 2015 needs to be approved before the current plan lapses.

Failure to do so, Wingfield said, could potentially affect federal capital funding for transportation projects in the county.

"We hope that we can work cooperatively with them to adopt a transportation plan that both the state and the MPO find acceptable," he said.

Last year, the policy panel also left I-69 off of its plan but reconsidered and included it after the state told local officials that doing so would risk losing funding for other highway projects.

An environmental group that opposes the highway extension released a report last month warning that the project will siphon hundreds of millions of dollars away from other road and bridge projects in coming years.

The Hoosier Environmental Council's report concludes that the highway's nearly $3 billion estimated cost will consume one-fifth of funding available for state highway construction and maintenance projects between 2012 and 2014.

In 2013 alone, nearly 30 percent of Indiana's highway funds will go toward I-69, leaving many projects across the rest of the state stuck in "shovel ready" mode, said Tim Maloney, the council's senior policy director.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Hold Strong!
    Keep it up Monroe County! This project will devistate your county and ultimately negatively impacts the rest of the state. This project is a waste and uses much needed funds that should be directed towards fixing and improving existing infrastructure. Keep you stance!

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT