From the Muncie Star Press...

"this much is clear: a new-terrain route requires much more in the way of sacrifices by Indiana landowners and taxpayers"

I-69

The old saying "You can't get there from here" hardly applies to extending I-69 from Indianapolis to Evansville. State highway planners have 14 proposed routes on the drawing board.

The project has been in the works for years, or at least since NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) became a reality in 1993 and federal officials began casting about for an improved overland route from Mexico to Canada.

Indiana's contribution will be to fill in the section between Indianapolis and Evansville so that the road can proceed on its way to Houston and points south.

Our state has had trouble agreeing on a route, hence the 14 variations on a theme.

Realistically, the argument breaks down to building a mostly "new terrain" route through southern Indiana vs. upgrading established route corridors along the state's western boundary.

The "new terrain" approach offers advantages of proximity (a dozen or so miles shorter) and economic potential (a major new highway would make southwestern Indiana more attractive to economic investment).

The western route (I-70 west of Indianapolis with a bypass to connect with U.S. 41 south of Terre Haute) would be far less expensive, perhaps by as much as $600 million. Also, it would avoid the need to retire hundreds of acres of prime farm land and significant forest acreage.

Major problem with the western route has been its failure to "connect" with the right politicians at Indianapolis. There is the feeling that "new terrain," with its mystical promise of economic development as well as more dollars for politically friendly highway contractors, is on a fast-track to winning the battle of routes.

Recently, when state officials unveiled a 59-page analysis of the I-69 project, those fighting for the western route thought they noted some unfairness. They said the study paid scant attention to such factors as construction costs or environmental disruption.

Instead, the survey, which is required to qualify for federal construction dollars, deals more with the economic isolation of Indiana communities now lacking a major roadway such as I-69.

Andy Knott, of the Hoosier Environmental Council, said the report "leans drastically" toward a new-terrain highway, a charge that was denied by Cristine M. Klika, commissioner of Indiana's Department of Transportation. It is too early to read much into the report, Klika said, suggesting the route selection will depend heavily on environmental-impact factors.

While both sides were making old arguments, this much is clear: a new-terrain route requires much more in the way of sacrifices by Indiana landowners and taxpayers.

The environmental arguments (farm land and forests) are significant reasons not to cut a new road through Indiana's heartland. And if Indiana can save $600 million or more by selecting the western route, why not do it? Certainly the state's uncertain financial future - which includes limited funds available for current highway needs - argues in favor of a more conservative approach instead of what could be amount to grandiose road-building.

We hope officials emphasize these considerations instead of mortgaging part of the state's future on the vague promise of more jobs for southwestern Indiana.

__________________________________________________________________

May 1, 2001. Reprinted with permission. © 2001 The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana.

webmaster