Steve Magruder
Foodie
439
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am
Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area
Steve Magruder wrote:Check out my response to today's C-J editorial on how the Ohio River Bridges Project will be financed. I publicly declare that the project, as it currently stands, is dead. I also offer (again) a responsible, affordable regional transportation alternative.
Steve Magruder
Foodie
439
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am
Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area
Robin Garr wrote:Steve Magruder wrote:Check out my response to today's C-J editorial on how the Ohio River Bridges Project will be financed. I publicly declare that the project, as it currently stands, is dead. I also offer (again) a responsible, affordable regional transportation alternative.
What's the alternative, Steve? 86-64?
Steve Magruder wrote:Basically, my position is 8664 with the following changes:
1) Eliminate the unnecessary east end tunnel -- the "historic" building in the way of the east end bridge approach can be moved.
2) Put off the decision to "86" I-64 at the waterfront until after the east end bridge is complete and a live traffic study can be conducted.
The bottom line for my declaration (from a mere citizen) is that it's time for the Louisville community to have a full, faithful discussion on alternatives that are actually affordable.
Steve Magruder
Foodie
439
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am
Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area
Jay M. wrote:Steve Magruder wrote:Basically, my position is 8664 with the following changes:
1) Eliminate the unnecessary east end tunnel -- the "historic" building in the way of the east end bridge approach can be moved.
2) Put off the decision to "86" I-64 at the waterfront until after the east end bridge is complete and a live traffic study can be conducted.
The bottom line for my declaration (from a mere citizen) is that it's time for the Louisville community to have a full, faithful discussion on alternatives that are actually affordable.
Of course the "historic" building can be moved - it could even be razed. But, there are constituencies that will fight to their last breath to avoid either option. It's not just about the building. There are influential parties in nearby Prospect that do not want an interstate highway in their backyard, and the tunnel option was likely a compromise meant to "hide" the highway underground (in addition to saving the historic building). Reopening the can of worms that is the Drumanard Estate would require additional NEPA investigations and an almost-for-certain lawsuit from River Fields and others, which would delay an I-265 east end link to Indiana even further and add to the cost. Maybe that's what you want(?).
Beth K. wrote:I work in Frankfort and I was daydreaming yesterday about how great it would be to have a train that went from Louisville to Frankfort, Cincinnati, Nashville, etc. It would be so nice to just relax and read or get some work done while traveling. I'm sure it makes commuting in places like Chicago and D.C. not so bad.
Steve Magruder wrote:Jay M. wrote:Steve Magruder wrote:Basically, my position is 8664 with the following changes:
1) Eliminate the unnecessary east end tunnel -- the "historic" building in the way of the east end bridge approach can be moved.
2) Put off the decision to "86" I-64 at the waterfront until after the east end bridge is complete and a live traffic study can be conducted.
The bottom line for my declaration (from a mere citizen) is that it's time for the Louisville community to have a full, faithful discussion on alternatives that are actually affordable.
Of course the "historic" building can be moved - it could even be razed. But, there are constituencies that will fight to their last breath to avoid either option. It's not just about the building. There are influential parties in nearby Prospect that do not want an interstate highway in their backyard, and the tunnel option was likely a compromise meant to "hide" the highway underground (in addition to saving the historic building). Reopening the can of worms that is the Drumanard Estate would require additional NEPA investigations and an almost-for-certain lawsuit from River Fields and others, which would delay an I-265 east end link to Indiana even further and add to the cost. Maybe that's what you want(?).
That's absolutely not what I want. I think it's fair though to acknowledge what you have admitted -- that River Fields is behind the vast majority of the delays. And they just succeeded in getting the east end bridge delayed another two years -- without any of my assistance.
I would ask though -- what is more expensive: costs from a couple years of delays, or the costs of this tunnel. I think the obvious choice is the tunnel. The tunnel is clearly not needed, and can be eliminated. The "historic" building was declared historic only in an effort to slow the work on the east end bridge. And everyone knows it.
Look, if the East End Bridge ultimately goes forward, even with the tunnel, River Fields will find some way, by hook or by crook, to try and stand in the way, using lawsuits or other means. It wouldn't be fair to slough off their activities on good citizens in the community who simply want to do the right thing.
In the final analysis, River Fields needs to be stopped.
Dan Thomas wrote:
I find it hard to believe after your whole hearted support of 8664 that you have seen the light!.....
Most of us Hoosiers(and any one else in the know) understand what the "East End" bridge will mean....
Steve Magruder
Foodie
439
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am
Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area
Jeff Gillenwater wrote:Dan Thomas wrote:
I find it hard to believe after your whole hearted support of 8664 that you have seen the light!.....
Most of us Hoosiers(and any one else in the know) understand what the "East End" bridge will mean....
I'm not Steve, but, as a Hoosier, I'm a little confused by this. 8664 has always strongly supported an East End bridge and maintained that the "two-bridges, one project plan" was an obstructionist tactic to delay it.
I'm very preservation minded but have always found it laughable that saving one property was supposedly so important to the River Fields/East End contingent while they simultaneously advocated another bridge right in the middle of two historic areas downtown.
Steve Magruder
Foodie
439
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am
Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area
Aaron M. Renn wrote:It's not just River Fields. Jerry Abramson has always hated an East End bridge. He never wanted it to be physically possible to bypass downtown, and he sure doesn't want any industrial land in Indiana opened up for development.
Steve Magruder wrote:That's absolutely not what I want. I think it's fair though to acknowledge what you have admitted -- that River Fields is behind the vast majority of the delays. And they just succeeded in getting the east end bridge delayed another two years -- without any of my assistance.
I would ask though -- what is more expensive: costs from a couple years of delays, or the costs of this tunnel. I think the obvious choice is the tunnel. The tunnel is clearly not needed, and can be eliminated. The "historic" building was declared historic only in an effort to slow the work on the east end bridge. And everyone knows it.
Look, if the East End Bridge ultimately goes forward, even with the tunnel, River Fields will find some way, by hook or by crook, to try and stand in the way, using lawsuits or other means. It wouldn't be fair to slough off their activities on good citizens in the community who simply want to do the right thing.
In the final analysis, River Fields needs to be stopped.
Users browsing this forum: Claudebot and 1 guest