My declaration: The bridges project is dead

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.

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.

[Robin Garr]

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?

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?

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.

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(?).

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.

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.

I've longed for a commuter rail system to the area for so long. I'm not positive it would be a lot better than my present carpool to Frankfort given our offices location, but if we ever moved downtown I think it'd be fantastic.

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.

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....
The old ammo plant that runs along IN 62 from Jeffersonville to Charlestown (2 lane divided) has nothing but potential as far as industry growth(It really is about the tax base isn't it?)

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.

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.

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.

Jeff, you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. 8664 indeed has always championed the East End bridge, and constructing it first, although, as far as I know, they have been mum on the question of the ridiculous east end tunnel. Heck, even the C-J editorial board labeled the tunnel 'ridiculous' recently.

I agree that River Fields cannot be taken seriously, as this is really just a nimbyist organization in poor disguise.

I would add two points to yours that deflates the River Fields position:

1) There is local precedence for moving historic properties -- The facade of Heigold House was moved to become an entrance to Butchertown. River Fields' recent "historic" discovery can be moved at a far less expensive cost than constructing the tunnel.

2) The "Fettuccine Junction" that would result from the current ORBP plan would obliterate wide swaths of Butchertown, a very historic neighborhood, and we don't see River Fields demonstrating any concerns about that.

Above all, I have had enough of a few people complaining of delays and the costs of delays in this project, as if they have largely been caused by 8664 and active citizens questioning the girth and high costs of the ORBP. We are talking about a 50-100 year decision here, and whatever the community decides, it needs to withstand the test of time, including the affordability of maintenance (which I think a lot of people don't seem to consider). The current ORBP calls for 93 land-based bridges in Fettuccine Junction -- not exactly cheap to maintain. Maintaining just the east end bridge and the existing Kennedy bridge is already going to be of tremendous cost. Why add an unnecessary second downtown bridge to this mix?

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.

I concur. We even have recent evidence of this in how state government was gung ho behind starting the east end bridge first, but now has inexplicably reoriented towards starting work on Spaghetti Junction first. The proof of Mayor Jer being behind this is that the C-J editorial board, which everyone must know is in his hip pocket, acted as a cheerleader for this switcharoo.

The citizens of Louisville really should be up in arms about this madness.

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.

Hasn't all of this been vetted? The Bridges project went through a federally mandated NEPA process, which includes:

1) evaluation of historic properties, and
2) public comment period and public involvement

among a host of other environmental and cultural issues like endangered species, noise, wetlands, socio-economic, haz waste, Indian lands, yada, yada, yada............... All of this is summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The historic properties review involves the State Historic Preservation Office, which is the agency that evaluates the technical merit of a claim of a property's historic significance. Apparently, they determined the Drumanard Estate meets the federal/state definition of "historic", hence it is protected. I guess I'd be naive to suggest that no politics were involved, but who knows.

Also, the NEPA process included public comment periods. If the issues you raise were raised at that time, apparently they were resolved and the agencies allowed the project to progress. If the issues were not raised at that time, well tough - the public missed its opportunity. I suspect there was no opposing group that was as well organized as River Fields, but the process designed by the Feds to allow public review and comment was allowed to play out.

You ask: "what is more expensive: costs from a couple years of delays, or the costs of this tunnel." First of all, I don't think it's a given that the couple of years of delay is cheaper than the cost of the tunnel when you factor in the cost of lawsuits and lost economic development and traffic delays due to the delay of bridge construction. Also, is the two (+) year delay worth the effort and expense when the likely outcome is the same? We've been through all of this - why would you expect a different result?

Incidentally, I might suggest you invite Tim Hagerty, the attorney with Frost Brown who represented the Bridges Project through the NEPA process, to comment here or on your site. I will PM you his email address.

By the way, I have been to your Louisville History and Issues site several times and appreciate the breadth of local issues you cover. Maybe I should take my comments over there? Wait...........don't answer that.

I agree the tunnel is just another attempt to torpedo the east end bridge. Just like the addition of a second downtown bridge to the project in the first place. It was added because it was thought that the project would never get OK'd at that point. Well whoops, look at it now.