86 8664

Yep, It's about time we brought this up...
Someone else tell me why this is a good idea, please?

[Robin Garr]

Yep, It's about time we brought this up...
Someone else tell me why this is a good idea, please?

Takes back our riverfront, routes through traffic around the city rather than through it, makes downtown a destination rather than just a place to fly past, and outrages the Courier-Journal?

... and outrages the Courier-Journal?

The primary benefit?!!

Yep, It's about time we brought this up...
Someone else tell me why this is a good idea, please?

Takes back our riverfront, routes through traffic around the city rather than through it, makes downtown a destination rather than just a place to fly past, and outrages the Courier-Journal?

While I understand the ideological concept, I'm still having issues with the idea of intentionally routing traffic that far out.

[Robin Garr]

While I understand the ideological concept, I'm still having issues with the idea of intentionally routing traffic that far out.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Aaron, but it's worth a closer look: We're talking about a significant difference in paradigms and priorities, and asking - as a community - whether moving traffic rapidly into the city really is as important as the conventional wisdom since the end of World War II has held.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But it's well worth subjecting these issues to a serious debate, rather than merely parroting, "We do it this way because this is the way we always do it."

Having been a resident of Southern Indiana, this is probably the most ill conceived idea I have ever heard of for many reasons.

1. Routing all interstate thru traffic around downtown by(presuming they build the east-end bridge)sending it several miles out of the way doesn't solve any problems it just adds to them. If you currently travel I-265 in southern Indiana you know that this stretch of highway is already bursting at the seams with traffic. At certain times the off ramp to Charlestown Rd. will back up so much it will over flow into the right hand lane of the interstate. Why would we want to divert more traffic this way when it is apparent to me that it is already inadequate to handle the current traffic flow?

2. The cost of removing several hundred million dollars of infrastructure already in place hasn't even been discussed.

3.Anyone who commutes from say Jeffersonville to New Albany on I-64 as it is now will lose the most direct, time saving and efficient route to travel.

I could go on and on, but I feel that these three things are enough to get a healthy debate going if someone cares to rebuke them.

[Robin Garr]

I could go on and on, but I feel that these three things are enough to get a healthy debate going if someone cares to rebuke them.

Dan, I don't have the data to support or to rebuke them, but in any case, that's not the point I tried to make in my response.

To restate it, I'm sure that you are right, <i>if</i> the primary public-policy purpose of the system is to move people in private vehicles quickly around Southern Indiana and from Southern Indiana into central Louisville.

But is that the only priority? Is there a reason why it should be set as a high priority, or even as a priority at all? What if we 86'd 64 but put a major effort into quality, 21st century mass transit for commuters instead?

I think the real point in 8664 is simply saying, wait, before we invest billions and billions of dollars in post-WWII public policy and highway technology, let's look outside the box, skeptically challenge the conventional wisdom, and see what else is there.

Do you really want to entrust our community's urban planning for the next 100 years to the highway industry, pols and the CJ editorial board, without even asking for outside opinions?

I have to agree with Robin's assessment. There's simply nothing wrong with looking at an alternative. And even more importantly, the best practices/thinking in urban planning and urban transportation planning have changed a lot since WWII era.

It is extremely commonplace to route traffic around a city center, in fact in many ways its desirable. One of the mantras in urban planning is that a sign of a vibrant city is a certain amount of traffic congestion. Not gridlock, of course.

IMHO, I'm really happy with the progress our city has been making in encouraging more of the city to redirect itself towards downtown. I think that adding additional lanes of interstates through the downtown is going to deter people away and encourage more suburban sprawl. I would like to believe that it is worth spending a few more minutes in the car to take a little longer route and maintain a beautiful downtown for Lousiville. And no offense, but especially for the people who actually live in Louisville. I understand that Southern Indiana is more like a suburb of Louisville, I'm not trying to create bad blood between the two locations. But, if I decided to live in the suburbs of Chicago , I couldn't really be upset about the time it took me to get into the city. You pick your benefits: more affordable real estate or convenience to the city. I guess what I'm trying to say, in an oh-so-careful-way is: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Having been a resident of Southern Indiana, this is probably the most ill conceived idea I have ever heard of for many reasons.

Spending over $4 billion to continue and increase reliance on single occupancy vehicles while ignoring our aging population, educational and economic opportunities for those without cars, and increasing worldwide demand for oil doesn't strike me as particularly well conceived, either. SOV's are the most expensive, most dangerous, most environmentally damaging, and least efficient possible way to move large numbers of people around the metro. How is doing more of that better?

. Routing all interstate thru traffic around downtown by(presuming they build the east-end bridge)sending it several miles out of the way doesn't solve any problems it just adds to them. If you currently travel I-265 in southern Indiana you know that this stretch of highway is already bursting at the seams with traffic. At certain times the off ramp to Charlestown Rd. will back up so much it will over flow into the right hand lane of the interstate. Why would we want to divert more traffic this way when it is apparent to me that it is already inadequate to handle the current traffic flow?

First, several miles out of the way of what? By definition, through traffic isn't stopping anywhere near here and, at least in the case of westbound traffic, entering Indiana sooner would actually put them closer to their eventual destination.

The only reason the Charlestown Road exit on I-265 backs up is because Southern Indiana, like Louisville, has done a lousy job of controlling sprawl, but even that's for only an hour or so at only two exits with Grant Line Road being the other. Any effective transportation plan must be accompanied by better planning and zoning as part of a much more sustainable land use plan. 8664 fits in nicely with the huge sums already spent on and earmarked for downtown revitalization while the current Bridges plan works against it. It also works against the same types of downtown efforts in Jeffersonville and New Albany, both of which have strengthened considerably in the last few years. The Bridges plan encourages sprawl, which will create even more Charlestown Road-like exits.

2. The cost of removing several hundred million dollars of infrastructure already in place hasn't even been discussed.

I agree it should be discussed but unless you're suggesting that removing a short stretch of interstate and one exit would be more expensive than a decade of construction to build a new downtown bridge and expand Spaghetti Junction into a massive octopus- the two projects that spend the majority of that $4 billion- I'm not sure I understand that as an argument against 8664.

3.Anyone who commutes from say Jeffersonville to New Albany on I-64 as it is now will lose the most direct, time saving and efficient route to travel.

No, they won't. As a New Albanian, I travel between NA and Jeff regularly at all times of the the day. Hwy. 62 between the two is just as fast and easier.

Sorry for the long post from a newbie. I feel like it's important for the metro area to understand that not all Hoosiers are for two bridges or against 8664, even if the mainstream media and pols spend significant time making it sound that way.

As a Hoosier, I like the 8664 plan. For one, it routes thru-traffic away from downtown, although I think the existing 265 will need to be widened, with the overpasses presenting problems. Also, it is an alternative to another downtown bridge, which would go thru and wreck downtown Jeff.

Also, we shouldn't forget that the stretch of I-64 downtown that would be 86'd would be replaced with a surface-level boulevard. So, people could still use this route as before, and take 5-10 extra minutes. Big whoop.

I just hope that this is not just a tactic to slow down building the two new bridges that this city needs very badly...especially the east end bridge...

If anything, Robert, the opposite is true. 8664 has always been in favor of building an East End bridge immediately.

It's the huge cost of "two bridges, one project" that many believe to be an effort to obstruct East End bridge construction. Why not focus efforts on the East End bridge- the construction of which has been planned for fifty years and has rarely been opposed by anyone save a small, politically powerful minority- rather than making it a much more difficult to fund all or nothing proposition?

It's a very believable claim when you consider that a former president of River Fields, a group that's always fought an East End bridge, was given a a vice chair position within the Bridges Coalition.

To make matters worse, Keith Runyon, the C-J's Forum Section Editor, is the husband of Meme Runyon, the Director of River Fields. It's an obvious conflict of interest but he's written on the subject (in favor of his wife, of course) anyway with no disclaimers or qualification.

Even Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, with whom I regularly disagree, has said the "one project" idea was born as a tactic to delay the whole project.

Given the amount of misinformation and unsubstantiated claims readily tossed around by Coalition members, anyone who voted against the library tax based on concerns of dishonesty or lack of alternatives would have to reject the current bridge plan based on the very same principles.

I would suggest that you both sign up at 8664.org to receive emails (which is where some of the above information came from) and attend the information session at the Kentucky Center on November 28 at 6:00 p.m.

Thank you Jeff for your insight...

I've approached the subject as a "commuter".

I still think it's a bad idea until proven otherwise, but I am always eager to hear other viable options...

However, I must tell you that I don't share your forward thinking opinion about the pros of MASS Transit. American people love their cars and the freedom to come and go as they please..