Check out Friday's editorial in the Courier-Journal: "Building bridges"

Here's the snip I want to discuss:

Quote:

While applauding the start of the panel's work, meanwhile, the community should insist that candidates who aspire to city and state leadership fully embrace the bridges project. It was distressing, for example, to hear Democratic mayoral hopeful Greg Fischer say the other day that the effort should begin with a new East End bridge, with fixing Spaghetti Junction and building a new downtown bridge to come later. It shouldn't be necessary to repeat this for mayoral candidates, but here goes: The record of decision for the project is a done deal, arrived at after years of study and discussion and agreed to by a broad consensus of the political and business leadership in two states. It calls for both bridges to be pursued at the same time, and for good reason. The downtown bridge is needed primarily to meet the area's transportation needs; the eastern span will be an economic development boon.

It is distressing to the River Fields-controlled C-J Editorial Board that a mayoral candidate is calling for a bridge that is already scheduled in the ORBP to have its development well underway before the rest of the plan commences?

I don't know what ORBP plan the C-J Board is reading (or what they're smoking), but the East End Bridge and the downtown redevelopment (unnecessary new I-65 companion bridge, Spaghetti Junction hyper-widening, etc.) are not happening simultaneously in the schedule. Their development times intersect yes, but the East End Bridge clearly starts at least a couple years ahead of any downtown work. And I think many would also realize that given the funding issues, it's likely that the East End Bridge would be in development for many more years before any downtown work commences.

Also interesting is their mention of Fischer, as if he's been the one leading some kind of charge for the East End Bridge all because of one recent sentence in a vague jobs plan. The reality is that Tyler Allen (another candidate for mayor that the C-J clearly intends to ignore) has been the one leading the charge for the East End Bridge well before the mayoral campaign started. Is this yet another sign that the C-J board is promoting Fischer, who was AWOL on this issue before this campaign and who is heavily funded by River Fields interests?

Last, the C-J continues to pretend that there is "broad consensus" about the entire ORBP. There is not. There is indeed broad consensus to build the East End Bridge, but the public has never clamored for the project as currently designed downtown — that was indeed a political compromise designed to make the East End Bridge more palatable to the East End NIMBYists, or worse, to stop the entire ORBP due to the exorbitant costs.

It is amazing to me that the C-J editorial board continues to not realize that We the People are on to their sick prank against the best interests of the Louisville region.

---

Mayoral candidate Tyler Allen responded to this editorial today:

The charade continues. I strongly disagree with the CJ’s editorial of February 5 calling on the “next wave of community leaders to get with the plan.” Now is not the time to “get with the plan”, now is the time for real leaders to step forward and publicly say enough is enough.

The “plan” in this case is the Ohio River Bridges Project and the Tolling Authority set up to finance it by tolling the citizens of this community. The need to build the East End Bridge has been clear for more than half a century! The fact that it is not yet built has had enormous consequences for this community’s belief that we can “get things done.” The solution to this problem is to build the East End Bridge, not continue down an unrealistic path in the wrong direction.

It is a shame that the CJ has been taken in by the fantasy that the current bridges proposal is what the citizens want and the city needs. The idea that we are stuck with a political compromise set in motion before merger, and that has never been publicly vetted by our elected leaders since merger, is very bad public policy.

Must Louisville bury its downtown under a $2 Billion 23 Lane-Wide New Spaghetti Junction just to have the privilege of connecting I-265? Must Jeffersonville double the size of I-65 through its downtown just so its citizens can finally bypass downtown on a East End Bridge on their morning commute to work? The answer is ‘NO’. Let’s be clear, we cannot set our city back just because very powerful people do not want an East End Bridge.

Gov. Daniels told the authority at its first meeting that they “need to be creative” to get this financed. Creativity cannot be limited to where to look for money (especially since it’s clear they are looking mostly into our pockets). Creativity demands looking at the needs and scaling the project down to what we can afford to build.

Critics of mine, including the CJ, have said I’m a one issue candidate. Interestingly, they clearly believe that my so called “one issue” is “the most important civic undertaking in the metro region and is pivotal to the area’s economic future.” Wow, we better get this right. The CJ thinks the candidates for Mayor should get in line. Louisville deserves a “new wave” of leaders who don’t get in line, but rather listen to the citizens, demonstrate a vision and move Louisville forward... starting with an East End Bridge!

---

According to The 'Ville Voice:

Quote:

Allen will hold a press conference at 3:00 P.M. this afternoon in front of the Courier-Journal to respond to the editorial.

Steve Magruder — LouHI Administrator and web programmer


Please become a fan of Louisville History & Issues on Facebook

Redding @ Mojo is also covering this.

Here's a choice quote:

Quote:

The C-J's stance reminds me of George W. Bush — who kept saying things that weren't true in hopes that eventually everyone would believe him. Well, the bridges aren't built, and no matter how many times the C-J and the Mayor and GLI and the Indiana politicians toe the company line, it's not too late to change direction before building an unnecessary $4.1 billion project.

I'm recommending like-minded folks that are sick of this arrogance tell the CJ's parent company, Gannett, how they feel. I have a hunch Gannett has no idea this shit is going on:
http://www.gannett.com/contactus.htm

"The Best is Yet to Be"
—Curt Morrison
Real Estate Broker/ Highlands Resident/ Candidate for Jefferson County Judge/Executive

NA Confidential is covering this matter as well.

Here's a choice quote from one of the comments about a point that hasn't been made enough in my opinion:

Quote:

ORBP advocates have gone to great lengths to convince the public that any changes to the plan would result in the federal Record of Decision, the instrument giving initial approval, being vacated so that the project would have to go back to square one. That assertion, though, has been formally challenged by more than one authority who point out that a project that serves the same purpose and fits into the same environmental footprint would not require starting over but could be amended by a highly abbreviated process. In fact, it's not at all unusual for projects of this scope to go through a Record of Decision amendment process owing to the difficulty of financing them. The only official comment from ORBP advocates in response to that challenge of their assertion has been "No comment". Should we and the media just let that stand? As Tyler Allen suggests, for ORBP advocates, the finance authority, and the media to ignore all that in favor of continued smoke screens is detrimental to the region's future and the ability of residents to shape it.

Here's the video from Tyler Allen's press conference:


Link


Allen mentions that the Courier-Journal wouldn't print a response from him because they didn't mention him by name. How clever-by-half of the Editorial Board, eh?

Like in the video, on his campaign site he asks everyone to write the C-J about this:

Quote:

The CJ will not print letters written by candidates running for public office. However, they will print yours. Please take a moment and draft a letter to the CJ telling them that you want leaders who take a stand not simply "get with the plan." You may submit your letters to the CJ's website by clicking here: Courier-Journal.

Why should they get this right? They don't get anything else right. Seems like all they end up doing is add more controversy to any issue.

I've learned that whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

Here's 8664's take on the C-J editorial.

I had noted that construction on the East End Bridge is slated to start two full years before any downtown work (interchange rework) is to begin. But the smart folks at 8664 are pointing out something even more meaningful — The East End Bridge bridge is slated to be completed one full year before the second I-65 bridge development is planned to be started.

Yeah, both bridges at the same time, C-J... really now.

I agree. However, we should also include a light rail option when discussing transportation issues. Let's advocate to get T2 back on track, which if allowed to cross the big river would solve the pesky downtown bridge issue.

johnbaker wrote:

I agree. However, we should also include a light rail option when discussing transportation issues. Let's advocate to get T2 back on track, which if allowed to cross the big river would solve the pesky downtown bridge issue.

Louisville is not a good city to use light rail in. Its population is not dense enough to make it an attractive alternative. The last proposal to have it run from the Airport (possibly LAP) to downtown made absolutely no sense. All of the stations may be where people want to go but none of them were near where people live. Even if you put a station in a residential neighborhood the density is so low that very few people would want to walk to the station. Any light rail system put in Louisville would just be a money pit that kept swallowing money with no hope of even coming close to breaking even.