86 8664

The future is not in accomodating more and more cars. It is finding good ways to replace them with a practical and economical alternative form of transportation. I'd love to see this money spent on a comprehensive public transporation like light rail.

No worries, Dan. Hopefully the release of the 8664 study at the forum will enlighten all of us.

I'm with Ron and others when it comes to light rail but we're admittedly in the regional minority, though that may be changing with increased exposure. We have to change KIPDA's and the Feds' minds as well.

I think it will be especially interesting to see how the shifting age demographic affects communities around the country. Some fairly recent IU School of Business studies suggest that with Boomers aging into retirement, we'll actually have fewer workers (and I would presume fewer commuters) in and around Indiana relatively soon with the number of people who don't want to or can't drive increasing substantially.

It's fascinating that we pay such lip service to what that might do to Social Security and health care policy but haven't really addressed more mundane things like how all those people will get around.

It's makes sense to me to start building the public transportation systems they'll need while they're still generating payroll taxes instead of waiting until the demand is high and the number of tax payers footing the bill is depleted.

The same is true of education. It seems like every study done shows the metro area must increase its level of educational attainment to succeed economically but we're still spending alarmingly large portions of our public education budgets on busses and fuel rather than teaching and learning because we have to deal with a current transportation system that's less efficient than it was a hundred years ago.

American people love their cars and the freedom to come and go as they please..

Well, we also have to consider the "freedom to come and go as they please" for people who cannot afford or don't want to spend money on the increasingly expensive habit of personal transportation. Or the aging population, some of whom probably shouldn't be behind the steering wheel. We all need to get around. So, we obviously need a hybrid private/public approach, whereas currently it's heavily tilted toward private transportation.

I bet a lot of people would love to stop paying their car expenses if they had a real choice in the matter.

I think cars and light rail can co-exist nicely. I appreciate being able to go where I want when I want, but I'd also like to have the option for good, fast public transportation. When I lived in Old Louisville I used TARC a lot.

It feels like a light rail discussion in this community may be dead for decades. The last study fell on deaf ears for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the need for a permanent subsidy to make it work (much like Tarc). I'm afraid we need a larger city and a larger tax base to make it feasible.

I've maintained for years that if TARC was more user friendly, more reliable, and more 'on time', then I for one would probably be riding the #31 since it stops in front of my condo, and also at the corner next to my office. However, I do not have the confidence in the system, after seeing first hand from a friend of mine, to rely on it full time. It's slow, it's schedule is not condusive to real life situations, and it's uncomfortable. I say bring back the interurban.

Now, back on the main topic. 8664 is a grand idea, that is worthy of closer examination. However, I doubt very seriously that anything will come of it. It would be very nice if it would.....having the riverfront back without the interstate would be a very nice thing, however, I personally feel that the powers that be won't let it happen for various political reasons.

A question I often ask but never seem to get answered:

If the "has to pay for itself" principle applies to TARC and light rail, why doesn't it also apply to highways, interstates, and bridges since they're already the largest consumer of tax dollars besides the military and typically 100% permanently subsidized?

I love Louisville and wish the Downtown and East End bridges were not combined into one large project. But for some reason this was done several years ago (2003?) and separating them now is unlikely.

I also like the 8664 idea but that should have been brought up many years ago during the countless hearings and delays. Waterfront Park is a wonder ful and enjoyable area but I also remember when there was only junkyards and train tracks in the same spot not so long ago.
No one cared when I-64 was originally built overhead in that area.

Here are some issues that I do not see frequently addressed:

If the East End Bridge already existed (which should have been built
decades ago) then 8664 would be an option.
However, neither one of the new bridges seem to be making any progress.

Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tunnel bids top estimates
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc ... 008/NEWS01

There was also millions of dollars spent to Restore 64 over this summer. Also, the mayor has stated on many occasions that the Federal Highway Administration will not consider tearing down a thru interstate highway.
I-64 and increasing traffic will not go away (as much as we would like this to happen.) The traffic congestion will only get much worse and more expensive to fix the longer the bridges are delayed.

Why Metro Council wants to study this issue now (after years of Bridge Project hearings) is especially puzzling. It is way past time for more studies and meetings and move forward with either bridge.

Local and "thru" truck traffic is also increasing and there are few alternatives for trucks to avoid congestion through the Metro Area. Restricting truck traffic does not seem to be an option because of "just in time" inventory and deliveries plus demand for fresher foods and other commodities.
Service and construction vehicles are on a tight schedule as are school buses. Delays cost precious time and money. (which is passed on to everyone.)
This is a much larger issue than single occupancy cars.

The Bridges Project is now estimated to be $4.1 Billion dollars. (However, I understand there is no "real" federal money available. It would be all borrowed money thanks to the Current Occupant in the White House.)

But further delays in building the bridges will cost even more (in time and money) to Louisville and surrounding counties.
How much more delay will or community tolerate and be left behind other cities even more than we are now?

Again, I wish there was a real alternative to building more roads and bridges but this is an ever changing world and we are already behind

http://www.kyinbridges.com/Features.aspx

I love Louisville and wish the Downtown and East End bridges were not combined into one large project. But for some reason this was done several years ago (2003?) and separating them now is unlikely.

I also like the 8664 idea but that should have been brought up years ago during the countless bridge hearings and other delays.

Waterfront Park is a wonderful and enjoyable area but I also remember when there were only junkyards and train tracks in the same spot not so long ago.
Few people cared when I-64 was originally built overhead in that area
at the time.

Here are some other issues that I do not see frequently addressed:

If the East End Bridge already existed (which should have been built
decades ago) then 8664 would be an option. But it does not and will not likely exist for yet another undetermined time:

Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tunnel bids top estimates
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc ... 008/NEWS01

There was also millions of dollars spent to Restore 64 over this summer. Also, the mayor has stated on many occasions that the Federal Highway Administration will not consider tearing down a thru interstate highway. (Especially after just repairing the elevated sections of I-64.)

I-64 and increasing traffic will not go away (as much as we would like this to happen.) The traffic congestion will only get much worse and more expensive to fix the longer the bridges are delayed.
(Other large U.S. cities face traffic problems as well.)

Why Metro Council wants to study this issue now (after years of Bridge Project hearings) is especially puzzling. It is way past time (40 years) for more studies and meetings that cause even more delay.

Local and "thru" truck traffic is continually increasing and there are few alternatives for trucks to avoid congestion through the Metro Area. Restricting truck traffic does not seem to be an option because of "just in time" inventory and deliveries plus demand for fresher foods and other commodities.

Service and construction vehicles are on a tight schedule as are school buses. Delays cost precious time(which is not replaceable) and money. (increased costs are passed on to everyone.)

This seems to be a much larger issue than single occupancy cars. (Although that is not an insignificant issue.)

The Bridges Project is now estimated to be $4.1 Billion dollars. (However, I understand there is no "real" federal money available. It would be all borrowed money thanks to the Current Occupant in the White House and spineless Congress.)

But further delays in building the bridges will cost even more (in time and money) to Louisville and surrounding counties.
How much more delay will our community tolerate and be left behind other cities even more than we are now?

Again, I wish there was a real alternative to building more roads and bridges but this is an ever changing world and Louisville is already behind the times.

This post is not meant personally to anyone or 8664 but after decades of discussion (and glacial action) about the bridges and roads it would seem that there would be more than enough support to finally move our hometown ahead. It will not be perfect but it will be better than the present unsustainable interstate situation.

Maybe I should switch to decaf. Sorry about the long "rant!"

http://www.kyinbridges.com/Features.aspx

I agree. I like the idea of 8664, but I think the train has left the station.

Like a lot of political issues, there's no purely good alternative.

The Big Dig in Boston dramatically changed that city for the better. It has had some problems and it cost a fortune, but it just shows that almost anything can be done if there is a commitment.

Very true, Ron. For Mayor Abramson to state that the FHA categorically won't do something is a bit alarmist. The FHA could change dramatically (for better or worse) under different leadership.

Add the info below to Metro Council's interest:

New Albany Mayor-elect England has told me that neither he nor Jeffersonville Mayor-elect Galligan care one jot about an additional downtown bridge. According to England, both are much more concerned about the East End bridge.

Indiana Senator Richard Lugar has been strongly advocating a reduction of oil dependence as matter of national security.

As I mentioned previously, Indiana Gov. Daniels also sees the East End bridge as more important and is beginning to characterize the one project deal as obstructionism. The possibility of Indiana loaning Kentucky some of the money it needs for its portion of the project was mentioned in the interview. Daniels also said he finds 8664 "intriquing" and that it shouldn't be ruled out. That could become a factor if an offer was made with stipulations that the East End bridge be given priority.

http://www.news-tribune.net/archivesearch/local_story_308074437.html[/url]

Thanks for the article link, Jeff. That's a great find.

Jeff,

Thanks for the link for the interview with Indiana Governor Daniels.
I hope he is serious about lending Kentucky the money for the East End bridge.

I also hope that Kentucky Governor-elect Beshear accepts that offer in order to get at least the East End bridge back on track.
(Maybe even get rid of the stupid proposed tunnel?)

I can certainly understand why the Jeffersonville mayor does not care for the new Downtown Bridge. It would be better to concentrate on the East End bridge if the "Feds" will allow it.

Perhaps the elected officials in both states can find a way to separate the one huge project into two distinct bridges and finally get one built.

Related link to the September 2007 Louisville Magazine Editor's Letter:
http://www.louisville.com/loumag/articl ... d=77297062

A question I often ask but never seem to get answered:

If the "has to pay for itself" principle applies to TARC and light rail, why doesn't it also apply to highways, interstates, and bridges since they're already the largest consumer of tax dollars besides the military and typically 100% permanently subsidized?

Careful what you wish for. The Indiana Toll Road in northern Indiana has been leased to a joint venture Spanish and Australian firm for $ 3.85 billion. The windfall for the State of Indiana will fund various other highway projects. - ie:"pay for itself" . These so-called "public-private partnerships" will become more common as states deal with costs of new roads and maintaining aging infrastructure. The public won't tolerate a fuel tax increase, so states are more frequently evaluating this method of financing. I find this interesting because it truly sets a market value for highways.