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

Steve Krampe, a private citizen from Ferdinand, Indiana, opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, arguing that it is a fiscally irresponsible "vanity project" that would devastate local communities and Amish lands. He advocates for redirecting the proposed federal funding toward repairing and maintaining existing highway infrastructure instead of constructing a new corridor.

The commenter opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, citing concerns about its negative impact on local farms, businesses, Amish families, and the tax base. They also argue that existing highways are in poor condition and lack funding, making the new project unjustifiable.

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.

A resident of Dubois County opposes the Mid-States Corridor project, citing concerns over road safety, increased travel times for emergency services, and the destruction of multi-generational farmland. The commenter also argues that the project is unnecessary due to existing infrastructure and lacks sufficient funding.

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.