Shrill Editorial Went Down a False Road

Guest Column by Andy Ruff
Bloomington Herald-Times, June 6, 2001

Andy Ruff is a Bloomington City Council member at large and a vocal new-terrain I-69 opponent.

The Hoosier Times (H-T) editors have stressed the importance of civility and respect in debating issues. A May 10 H-T editorial,"I-69 Hysteria Getting Old, characterizing concerns of those opposed to a new-terrain I-69 as "hysteria" violates the standards of civility and respect the editors ask of others. Furthermore, a review of the I-69 debate shows that the editorial was misdirected.

For example, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce leaders and other I-69 supporters have been warning citizens that Indiana is in serious danger of losing I-69 to Illinois if we don't move faster to build it. But in an April 21 H-T article, a Federal Highway Administration official overseeing planning for I-69 in all states "dismissed the idea of I-69 going to Illinois" and stated, "Where did they get that notion from?"

I-69 supporters also assert that Indiana is way behind other states on the highway. In the March 2001 Business Network, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce president Steve Howard wrote, "Indiana is being viewed as a quirky, ill-led impediment to progress," and "other states have started construction." In sharp contrast to Howard's assessment, the Federal Highway Administration says Indiana is the leading state on I-69 (Indianapolis Star, May 15).

New-terrain supporters insisted that federal law required I-69 to go through or near Bloomington and therefore upgrading U.S. 41 wasn't an option. They were wrong. They said the highway would be built with "special federal funds," and that I-69 wouldn't consume large quantities of Indiana's regular annual allocation of gas tax revenues available for other needed projects throughout our state. Wrong again. Traffic accident and safety claims made by highway supporters are also inaccurate and misleading.

New-terrain supporters say that "new-terrain" is a misnomer and all routes would use mostly new-terrain. Again they 're wrong. The U.S. 41-I-70 route would use only a small fraction of the new-terrain required for any other proposed route. Much less farm and forest land would be taken by eminent domain and paved over.

Supporters have proclaimed that I-69 will be "a golden corridor" that it will create "an oasis of opportunity" and that it's the "only hope for a Southwest Indiana withering in economic decay." Talk about hysteria.

These I-69 supporters say the Crane naval center is in peril without a new-terrain I-69.

But Crane has remained through multiple rounds of base closures while dozens of bases with direct interstate access have closed. Crane is directly served by U.S. 231 and is well served by four-lane Ind. 37 (15 minutes on Ind. 58 from Crane's north gate). Both roads are part of the current National Highway System of major transportation routes. There is no good evidence indicating that Crane's future is linked to a new-terrain I-69.

Supporters say I-69 will create thousands and thousands of jobs. However the state's primary I-69 economic study predicts an average of four permanent jobs per county per year would be created by I-69 in the targeted southwest Indiana counties, at an average cost to taxpayers of $1.56 million per job.

The "Hysteria" editorial attempts to trivialize farmland and forest losses from a new-terrain I-69, and it tries to portray opponents as overreactive, by suggesting mathematically that 5,000 acres is an insignificant amount of the total of southwest Indiana. How does the H-T think these lands are lost — in huge chunks from nuclear disasters or volcanic eruptions? It's lost a piece at a time — 30 acres for a strip mall here, and 50 acres for a subdivision there. Five thousand acres for a superhighway (which doesn't include the additional sprawl-type land conversion the highway will encourage) is an extreme example of the systematic, incremental way "undeveloped" land is lost.

Simply counting acres taken for road right-of-way isn't a reasonable way to assess land impacts of the highway anyway. I-69 will be a barrier in rural areas, creating access difficulties for adjacent farmlands. Adjacent forests will be further fragmented and wildlife movement impeded.

The H-T's "math" ignores another major part of the equation — the fact that an alternative exists (improving existing roads) that provides the safety and economic benefits in a manner far less destructive to land and people and far less costly to taxpayers.

Finally, the "Hysteria" column continues the H-T's history of downplaying the size and diversity of new-terrain I-69 opposition, suggesting again that environmentalists are the only real opponents. Fiscal responsibility is the core issue for some of the strongest new-terrain opponents. INDOT's previous attempts to show benefits from a new-terrain highway significantly outweighing costs have been discredited. Bill Styring, a senior Hudson Institute economist, said it well last year when he broke ranks and admitted that a new-terrain I-69 is "very difficult to justify economically — although some have tried." Five of the six major newspapers in the state (Evansville being the one exception) oppose a new-terrain route and support U.S. 41/I-70. Environmentalists? The Indiana farming community (not just farmers whose land will be taken) is strongly opposed to any new-terrain route.

The H-T should formally apologize to the new-terrain I-69 opponents for the "Hysteria" column. Then the H-T should ask the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and other new-terrain supporters (including themselves) to be more responsible, careful and accurate in the future.

Bloomington Herald-Times, June 6, 2001