The Board of Directors of the Save the Dunes Council is on the record as opposing Senate Bill 1, which would provide Gov. Mitch Daniels with authority to retain a private company to build and manage a new toll road in Porter and Lake counties.

According to a statement released on Monday, the council has cited four rationale for opposing the proposed Illiana Toll Road.

‘Lack of Public Safeguards’

“It is Save the Dunes Council’s position that the proposed Illiana Toll Road legislation places far too much control over the project in the hands of the Governor and diminishes necessary oversight and input from the legislature,” the statement said. “This is especially important considering how long the state will be leasing the land to the private company. When problems occur or defaults happen, the public will ultimately pay.”

“More safeguards,” the statement added, “such as legislative oversight over contracts and agreements, should be amended to the legislation. Furthermore, the role and authority of the Legislative Review Committee needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, the legislation’s stated oversight is merely illusory and could mislead the public.”

‘Little or No

Feasibility Guidance’

“As with other privatization initiatives in the State of Indiana,” the statement said, “little has been done to actually determine the need and/or feasibility for this project.”

“If this legislation cannot be stopped,” the statement added, “it should be changed to allow for a feasibility study only that includes adequate opportunities for public input. Furthermore, this study must include typical bypass feasibility assessment tools such as origin/destination surveys and a travel time/delay study.”

‘Environmental and

Social Impacts’

“Placement of the proposed toll road will cause irreparable harm to the environment by destroying vital natural ecosystems, and by encouraging and accelerating unchecked development in areas not governed by effective land-use planning,” the statement said. “Instead, Save the Dunes recommends legislative and policy initiatives that support smart growth and open space, lessens our reliance on the automobile, and promotes revitalization and investment in core, existing communities.”

“We are also concerned,” the statement added, “about how the road and its associated unchecked development will impact certain areas of the Lake Michigan Watershed and a large portion of the ground water in the Kankakee River Watershed in Indiana. We want to make sure this impact is assessed by the Study Committee, and that all significant natural features and resources are documented before a route is selected.”

“In addition,” the statement said, “it is our belief that the ‘environmental impacts’ referenced in Section 11(4)C of the legislation need to be more accurately defined, such as

•Specifying that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be followed, or

•Requiring that the current Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Procedural Manual for Preparing Environmental Studies be utilized.”

“Using the current INDOT Procedural Manual for Environmental Studies also requires INDOT to assess the societal and environmental justice impacts of the project,” the statement said. “Save the Dunes Council believes that the attractiveness of cheap land and labor in the proposed areas will potentially pull investment from the inner core cities awaiting brownfield re-development and economic revitalization.”

‘New Sustainable

Development Solutions Needed’

“Save the Dunes Council also believes,” the statement said, “that it is time for fresh, new solutions to transportation as well as smart growth including the follow:

•Pursuing intelligent transportation systems as mentioned in S.B. 315.

•Funding mass transit, such as the South Shore Railroad, to reduce the number of automobiles on existing roadways.

•Studying ways to improve freight traffic and congestion in Indiana, such as the CREATE initiative in Illinois.

•Making public spending decisions that support smart growth and reinvestment in existing infrastructure, rather than unintentionally supporting unchecked development.”

“In conclusion,” the statement added, “this legislation is seriously flawed and vague and either needs to be re-written to address these concerns or not passed by the Legislature.”

Posted 3/6/2007