Environmental groups lose I-69 lawsuit

[lastrep]

usmcdad wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, you are right Mr. Black Beans. Its all part of the Security and Prosperity Agreement that sells out the sovereignty of the U.S. to the establishment of a regional super state, destroys the U.S. Constitution and the RIGHTS guaranteed thereby.
George Bush, Mitch Daniels, and the New World Order march on..........

Great, I love Mexican food.

[Steves Foolish Truth]

Badcat3 wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that going down 41 doesn't give ample access to Indiana. The road lies closer to Illinois than the heart of Southwestern Indiana. If I'm paying to build an interstate, I want MY state to be useful to me. I don't want to build a road for folks in Illinois. Thank you very much.

BadCat - as you point out there are legitimate arguments in favor of the 69 extension.(I also believe that there are legitimate arguments against it) Unfortunately - too many people like Steve make blatantly false claims rather than taking time to learn about the issue.(Steve professed that the 69 extension would cost less than upgrading 41) Other people talk only about the time it takes to drive from Evansville to Indy (like there are thousands making that trip every day) and compare the time it would take when 69 is complete to the current condition of 41 - which also is not realistic.

Personally I favor the alternate 69 route that would have had much less environmental & family impact - it seemed to offer the best combination of development opportunity and stewardship - but also would have made less money for a few select fat cats so it went down in flames.

[Realism]

Another question:
Why does building an interstate equate to progress?
Are you all aware the Indiana already has more miles of interstate highway per square foot of land than ANY other state?
We have more miles of interstate per square mile than larger states and more populated states.
So that means we're ALREADY the more progressive state, right?

----------

True to its motto, "Cross Roads of America" Indiana has more miles of Interstate Highway per square mile than any other state. The Indiana state Motto, can be traced back to the early 1800s. In the early years river traffic, especially along the Ohio, was a major means of transportation. The National Road, a major westward route, and the north-south Michigan Road crossed in Indianapolis. Today more major highways intersect in Indiana than in any other state.

From: http://www.50states.com/facts/indiana.htm

[lastrep]

Realism wrote:

Another question:
Why does building an interstate equate to progress?
Are you all aware the Indiana already has more miles of interstate highway per square foot of land than ANY other state?
We have more miles of interstate per square mile than larger states and more populated states.
So that means we're ALREADY the more progressive state, right?
----------
True to its motto, "Cross Roads of America" Indiana has more miles of Interstate Highway per square mile than any other state. The Indiana state Motto, can be traced back to the early 1800s. In the early years river traffic, especially along the Ohio, was a major means of transportation. The National Road, a major westward route, and the north-south Michigan Road crossed in Indianapolis. Today more major highways intersect in Indiana than in any other state.
From: http://www.50states.com/facts/indiana.htm

Would you rather all those people didn't spend their money in Indiana as they traveled through?
Would you rather the major distribution centers like Plainfield and all the job opportunities didn't exist? Would you rather the auto companies, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to be specific located somewhere else because the transportation system in Indiana was lacking?

[Tokin42]

Julia wrote:

Have you seen food prices lately? Fertilizer prices are going up, too (they are made from fossil fuels). Once we run out of fossil fuels, we run out of fertilizers that help produce so much food for so many fat americans -- real smart.

The price of food is going up thanks to the ethanol craze, not fertilizer costs. Please tell me you were just trying to be sarcastic and you really aren't that misinformed.

[Realism]

Just seems that states with fewer miles of highways have more opportunities so one does not necessarily equate to the other.

Also I live in a rural area and as I mentioned in my earlier post if you drive off I-65 which has been around for decades and decades and get off at a rural exit - there is no major development. There are a few gas stations, fast food restaurants, and an occaisional hotel. But interstates do not lead to development in rural areas. There have been numerous votes taken to get an exchange built at I-65 and Indiana 16, but it is continuously voted down. Are they just opposed to progress as well? Or is it that they don't mind driving a few extra miles to get to the nearest McDonalds?

As for someone who said that interstates are necesary for interstate commerce - we already have more miles of interstate per square mile that any other state - unless you own a trucking company, you won't see ANY cost savings.

lastrep wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you rather all those people didn't spend their money in Indiana as they traveled through?
Would you rather the major distribution centers like Plainfield and all the job opportunities didn't exist? Would you rather the auto companies, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to be specific located somewhere else because the transportation system in Indiana was lacking?

[lastrep]

Realism wrote:

Just seems that states with fewer miles of highways have more opportunities so one does not necessarily equate to the other.
Also I live in a rural area and as I mentioned in my earlier post if you drive off I-65 which has been around for decades and decades and get off at a rural exit - there is no major development. There are a few gas stations, fast food restaurants, and an occaisional hotel. But interstates do not lead to development in rural areas. There have been numerous votes taken to get an exchange built at I-65 and Indiana 16, but it is continuously voted down. Are they just opposed to progress as well? Or is it that they don't mind driving a few extra miles to get to the nearest McDonalds?
As for someone who said that interstates are necesary for interstate commerce - we already have more miles of interstate per square mile that any other state - unless you own a trucking company, you won't see ANY cost savings.
<quoted text>

What are those states with fewer highway miles that have all those opportunities?

[Ord]

Indiana watchdog wrote:

<quoted text>
Only a small portion of it, and federal dollars for highway building are drying up.

The Major Moves money will pay for about half of the highway's length from I-64 to Crane. Still don't know where money for the remainder from Crane to I-465 will come from. I think those funds have been sent to Iraq. Well, at least get it built from Crane to SR-37 at Bloomington, then worry about upgrading SR-37 later.

[Indylover]

Just build the damb freeway like everywhere else in this country that sees the need and stop complaining. This I-69 route to SW Indiana is the ONLY logical route. Hello??? It's 'bout damb time. Now get 'er done so I can save that 30 minutes between Naptown and Evansville. And to all you tree huggers.....go climb one of those trees so I can chop it down. Get a life, envrionmentalists.

[Indylover]

Realism wrote:

Another question:
Why does building an interstate equate to progress?
Are you all aware the Indiana already has more miles of interstate highway per square foot of land than ANY other state?
We have more miles of interstate per square mile than larger states and more populated states.
So that means we're ALREADY the more progressive state, right?
----------
True to its motto, "Cross Roads of America" Indiana has more miles of Interstate Highway per square mile than any other state. The Indiana state Motto, can be traced back to the early 1800s. In the early years river traffic, especially along the Ohio, was a major means of transportation. The National Road, a major westward route, and the north-south Michigan Road crossed in Indianapolis. Today more major highways intersect in Indiana than in any other state.
From: http://www.50states.com/facts/indiana.htm

Areas with interstate access are more available to participate in an economy that transports goods between places, genius.

[Julia]

Tokin42 wrote:

<quoted text>
The price of food is going up thanks to the ethanol craze, not fertilizer costs. Please tell me you were just trying to be sarcastic and you really aren't that misinformed.

Who is misinformed? Demand drives record fertilizer prices:

http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp...

[Donald Ingle]

Steve wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you ever driven the 70/41 route? I doubt it. Let me assure you that bringing that up to interstate standards would in the end be tremendously more costly, and would pave over as much existing farmland than extending I-69. But I guess the people who never intend to make the drive regardless of how or where the highway is built couldn't care less. You have your highways, and think the "game is over now." Stay where you are, who cares?

Not true. Using INDOT's own figures here, an I-69 route utilizing US 41 as the corridor would have cost 750 million. The new terrain route will cost over 3 billion, assuming they don't have any problems and additional related costs crossing the sinkhole plain. Not that we have the money to build it at this point, anyway. Upgrading SR 37 to Bloomington alone would have cost more than that. There would be absolutely no loss of farmland whatsoever with the US 41 route. How you got that notion, I have no idea. You'd be building a road ON a road. There will be loss of farmland on a new terrain I-69 route. Lots of it. Don't believe me. Check for yourself.
http://www.hecweb.org/File/Policy_Analysis_of...
http://www.commonsensei69.org/