|
Question:
You're going to lose, you refuse to accept that one
of the primary purposes of I-69 is to get Bloomington on an Interstate.
I-69 does that. US41 does not. You keep talking about
Evansville and Indy, but you dishonestly ignore everything in the
middle.
You're argument proceeds from false premises and is easily
discarded.
Answer:
A number of the posts above incorrectly assume that I-69 or Toll-69
needs to go to Bloomington.
The reason for the study of I-69 is that Evansville proponents got I-69
included in the NAFTA Corridors projects around the time of that
treaty, Formally known as Section 115 (c) of the Intermodal
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat.
2032)
I-69 is defined federally as Corridor 18. It requires some thirty
Sections of "Independent Utility" (SIU) be studied. Our sections
in Indiana are:
Section 1; Existing I-69 from I-465
north to Port Huron Michigan (including the most congested
intersection in Indiana I-69 and I-465) -- Study yet to be
started. Hints of a commuter rail solution have been documented
by INDOT and called for by the public there.
Section 2; Existing I-69 at I-465 to proposed northern termination of
Section 3 assumed to be SW Marion County on existing I-465. Study
not begun yet, but INDOT has looked at a easterly bypass of Muncie
passing east than south of Greenwood and through Franklin to
Martinsville. The Federal Corridor 18 proposal suggested a new
direct interstate cutting through Indianapolis like I-70 from section 1
to section 3.
Section 3; The contested section of I-69 in SW Indiana. The NAFTA
Corridors law requiring study of Corridor 18 defined SIU3 as I-465 in
SW Marion County to I-64 Approximately 12 miles North of Evansville.
Section 4; from I-64 North of Evansville to Henderson Kentucky.
While it is true that the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce has
consistently supported I-69 and now Toll-69, it is not true that I-69
has ever had the support of Bloomington area government. Several
resolutions have condemned the project over the past decade and one
half. Now every community from Greene County (SW of Bloomington)
and north on existing SR 37 to Indianapolis have officially opposed
Toll-69 in their communities.
*****
Each section of the study is "Independent". That is it
must stand on it's own. No section requires the building of
another. Each state must decide if they want to use their federal
and state allocations of road tax funds to build each section in
competition with all the other transportation needs of each
state.
That is the reason for the Privatized Tolling that many of the sections
are now facing. The planning for this infrastructure is running
into the dreaded, how do we pay for this boondoggle? Taxpayers
were going to scream at their legislators, so try to sell it to foreign
investors. Privateers will do it if we give them:
1. State general fund guarantees
(see "moral obligation" in the Major Moves Bill),
2. No compete clauses. Assuring that the government will not build
parallel or competing infrastructure with these properties.
3. Low interest Private Activity
Bonds (PAB). Federal low interest guaranteed loans from USA
bond initiatives.
One seller of these government privatization projects has written COUNT
US! to say that the problem with the way it is being done in Indiana is
that the contracts are weighted to bring in the most upfront
money. The way this is done is by "giving away the farm" so to
speak. 99 year contracts weighted toward how much money we get up
front result in a greater requirement for pay back on the backside!
*****
The writer who posted the question above might consider the
plight of Terre Haute on the "common sense" route for I-69 (at $800
million dollars less cost) compared to the rich on corridor 18 as he or
she argues for a closer look at the land between the federally required
terminus. See: http://www.i69tour.org/greedy03.html
other
misconceptions
|
