IBJNews

Monroe County board to consider adding I-69 to plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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 as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.

ADVERTISEMENT