for Canip Creek bridge crossing
among committee members
(April 2009) Several historic preservation
groups have joined together to voice their preference for a new location
for a replacement Milton-Madison bridge. Not all preservation interests
A letter written by an attorney for the National Trust
for Historic Preservation was presented at the March 24 Milton-Madison
Bridge Project meeting. It promotes Alternative 12 or Canip
Creek Alternative B as having the least adverse impact on
historic properties in the area. It was read by Historic Landmarks Foundation
of Indianas Greg Sekula during a public comment period.
During the meeting, Project Advisory Group members were organized into
small groups and worked to help consultants narrow the location alternatives
to be further examined. Members discussed whether each of the 10 alternative
locations previously identified at other meetings met the purpose and
needs criteria for the project.
After the small group work, it was decided that four alternatives should
be given more intense scrutiny. These alternatives are the Jefferson
Street Alternative 6, The KY Hwy. 36 Alternative 8
and the Canip Creek Alternatives 11 and 12.
Tim Sorenson, one of the consultants on the project, said alternatives
1-3, which are Do Nothing, Rehabilitation, and
Superstructure Replace-ment, have not been ruled out at
this point. Alternatives 1-3 will be carried forward unless analysis
shows they are not feasible.
The information available to date shows that Alternative 12 appears
to have the least adverse impact on identified historic properties in
Kentucky and Indiana. Alternative 12 is outside the boundaries of the
Madison National Historic Landmark District in Indiana and is position
on the edge of the Hunters Bottom National Register Historic District
in Kentucky, stated the letter from the NTHP and signed by several
historic preservation groups.
The letter also said the Alternative 12 should be given
priority consideration, with a provision for a bypass location around
Madisons Historic Landmark District.
Those who signed the letter felt we needed to get this on the
table at this time, said Sekula, in a follow-up phone interview.
Of course we understand there needs to be more evaluation done
and more information collected.
The preservation consulting parties acknowledge the importance
of a cross-river bridge connection to the economic vitality and quality
of life in the region. While no party disputes the need for a new vehicular
bridge, the organizations and interests represented by this letter do
not support alternatives that would directly site the new bridge within
the boundaries of the Madison National Historic Landmark District,
stated the letter.
We recognize the bridge doesnt exist in a vacuum; we feel
this alternative looks most viable with less damaging impact to the
Rich Murray, president of Cornerstone Society, the local affiliate of
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, said his group has a
sense of urgency about some of the locations because of the potential
for effects of truck traffic funneled through the middle of the historic
district in Madison.
a February public meeting,
residents of Milton, Ky., and
Madison, Ind., were given a chance view
location alternatives for a possible
new Milton-Madison Bridge.
We will have to wait and see what happens if the
location selected for a new bridge would lie within the historic district
He said it became obvious at the recent meeting that the parameters
for the purpose and needs statement directing the site selection may
be way too narrow. The purpose and needs objectives were developed
from ongoing discussions and comments by PAG members are previous meetings.
Many historic preservation interests have PAG members present at these
Nathaniel Adams, a PAG member representing historical interests in Milton,
criticized the letter, calling it premature and selective.
There is a process the National Environmental Policy Act has established
that we need to go through, said Adams, an attorney, said in a
phone interview. I feel this letter has dictated which alternative
must be chosen and has short circuited the entire process.
He also said many of the parties involved in the Section 106 process
for the project were excluded. Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires federal agencies to taken into account the
effects of their actions on historic properties and affords the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment.
When (Project Manager) John Carr asked if all 106 parties were
represented, I could emphatically say no because I represent one of
them, and I was certainly not consulted on this issue, said Adams.
He thought the lack of consultation with all 106 groups was shocking.
He said it is understandable that criticism is going to happen in this
type of project but the notion that replacement of the bridge is at
odds with historic preservation is false.
Adams said everyone involved in the project can agree that the bridge
is in need of replacement. There are groups who have a narrow
view, he said. They need to come to the table and go through
the entire process.
The next PAG meeting for the Milton-Madison Bridge Project is scheduled
for 6:30 p.m. April 28 in Madison.
Back to April 2009 Articles.