Mid-States Corridor: Meetings scheduled to discuss narrowing options
Three public meetings are scheduled for next week
Preliminary map of alternatives released (see document link at Download button)
Several preliminary alternatives for the Mid-States Corridor are advancing for more detailed study.
Lochmueller Group, the firm contracted to complete the Tier I study, will continue to study 10 alternatives on a total of five different routes, with a preferred corridor expected to be announced this fall.
The Mid-States Corridor is an improved highway connection in southern Indiana that would begin at SR 66 near the William H. Natcher Bridge crossing the Ohio River at Rockport, continue generally through the Huntingburg and Jasper area and extend north to connect to Interstate 69.
The project team started its work in summer 2019 with 28 preliminary alternatives developed from a review of previous studies, agency feedback, and public input. The project team from Lochmueller has narrowed this list down to a total of 10 potential different routes through five alternative areas impacted by the highway.
Public Meetings
Three public meetings are scheduled next week to provide a project update and gather public input on the alternatives moving forward for detailed study. Meetings are planned for Loogootee, Bedford and Jasper for the following dates and locations:
Tuesday, Feb. 18: Loogootee High School
201 Brooks Ave., Loogootee, IN
Wednesday, Feb. 19: Bedford Middle School
1501 N St., Bedford, IN
Thursday, Feb. 20: Jasper Middle School
3600 N. Portersville Rd., Jasper, IN
The meetings are scheduled 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. ET and will feature an open house format. A presentation is planned for 6 p.m. each night. Project team members will be available for one-on-one conversations and questionnaires will be available to gather public input. The questionnaire is available here with responses accepted through Monday, March 23.
Screening Process
The Project Team considered impacts, costs and performance of preliminary alternatives during the screening process.
Impacts to both natural resources and the community were considered including natural environmental impacts, residential impacts, business impacts, managed land impacts and cultural resource impacts.
Comparative preliminary construction costs were determined for each alternative. Costs consider facility type and terrain.
Performance of each preliminary alternative was evaluated against the core goals of the project including to increase accessibility to major business markets, provide more efficient truck/freight travel to southern Indiana, reduce crashes in southern Indiana and increase access to major rail and air intermodal centers.
Three facility types were considered for Mid-States preliminary alternatives: freeway, expressway and Super-2.
• Freeway: A freeway includes at least two lanes in each direction of travel with access provided only at interchanges.
• Expressway: An expressway includes at least two lanes in each direction of travel with access provided by a combination of interchanges and at-grade intersections with state and local roads.
• Super-2: A Super-2 includes one travel lane in each direction, in addition to a passing/auxiliary lane and/or wider shoulders where appropriate. The facility could be used as one direction of a future freeway or expressway.
The 10 alternatives moving forward for additional study include a combination of routes and facility types. The full screening report is available here.
Next Steps
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be published this fall and will identify a preferred corridor. A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected in summer 2021. The ROD is the Federal Highway Administration’s final approval of the preferred corridor.
After a Tier 1 ROD, more detailed Tier 2 environmental studies will determine specific alignments and preferred alternatives within the selected Tier 1 corridor.
The primary purpose of these roads is so that corporations do not have to rework their own routes and spend money. The taxpayer will be on the hook so that they can save a few hundred thousand dollars of fuel costs.
The wear and tear on roads is due to their lack of desire to shave money off of their profits to take the alternative routes. The daily driver will see the benefit due to the main roads being less traveled and HOPEFULLY less damaged. But do we really need to tear up more farmland just so these corporations can save money? If so, these companies should be paying for the costs associated with research and environmental impacts that will need to occur.
I can only assume that several years down the road, they will want a connection of 69 in Bloomington to Louisville…. That seems the next “logical” step in this process. We do not need to connect every major roadway to another.
I have not seen anyone state the obvious: “I don’t want this in my backyard”.
I am sure that as this process winds along, and as a route is eliminated, those that would have been affected will breathe a sigh of relief that its going elsewhere. I live in the country because of the way of life it affords my family. This initiative will destroy my way of life, erode my property values, and reduce the enjoyment of my property.
If I wanted to live next to a freeway, expressway, or a super-2, I would have bought a house near one. I did not.
Agreed . This is moronic, my house is along the 231 route . I’m too old to start over again , and shouldn’t have to for the rich factory owners in Jasper and huntingburg , or anyone else .