Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Section 2 of the Mid-States Corridor Project: Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that it fails to address safety and congestion while primarily benefiting a few large companies and the Governor's private interests. They highlight concerns regarding the lack of public support, potential violations of the Farmland Protection Policy Act, archaeological impacts, and the existence of a viable alternative in I-69.

A local resident opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is an economically unfeasible and unnecessary project that will destroy rural land and farmland. The commenter suggests that funds should instead be used to repair existing infrastructure and improve current roads, such as the 231, which they claim would be more cost-effective and safer.

The commenter, identifying as a taxpayer, opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that it is an unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible use of public funds that primarily benefits a few wealthy business owners. They advocate for redirecting the project's funding toward improving existing infrastructure and the state's school system instead.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is economically unfeasible, lacks a valid "purpose and need," and will destroy rural land and farmland. They suggest that funds should instead be used to improve existing infrastructure, such as passing lanes and intersections, which would be more cost-effective.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is economically unfeasible, lacks sufficient funding, and will destroy rural farmland and forests. They suggest that the state should instead prioritize maintaining existing infrastructure and improving current roads like US231.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is an unnecessary and expensive project that will burden local taxpayers and harm the local economy. They express concerns about the loss of farmland, the isolation of communities, and the fact that funds would be better spent maintaining and improving existing roads.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is an unnecessary and expensive project that will burden local taxpayers and harm the local economy. They express concerns about the loss of farmland, the isolation of communities, and the fact that funds would be better spent maintaining and improving existing roads.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor Project, arguing that it is an unnecessary and expensive project that will lead to increased property taxes and a misuse of taxpayer funds. They also express concerns about negative local impacts, including the loss of road access and the fact that the project primarily benefits large corporations rather than local citizens.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that funds should instead be used to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges. They express concerns regarding the high costs, the displacement of families and farms, and the lack of significant travel time savings.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that it is a fiscally irresponsible project that lacks a demonstrated public need and will harm rural communities and farmland. They advocate for prioritizing the maintenance of existing infrastructure and implementing lower-cost improvements like additional passing lanes instead of constructing a new highway.