I listened to Tuesday's mayoral debate on downtown development issues (here's the full podcast), and they asked two questions related to the bridges. Here, I will distill the answers of all the candidates. By the way, if I don't get everything perfectly correct, please correct me in replies.

---

The first question was "Which bridge do you think should be built first, the East End Bridge or the Downtown Bridge?" (33:00 to 41:20 on the broadcast)

The candidates who took a strong, unequivocal position that the East End Bridge should be built first and foremost are Tyler Allen (D), Jonathan Robertson (R), Chris Thieneman (R) and Shannon White (D). The EE Bridge is scheduled to be completed first in the ORBP plan.

Thieneman said "We need it now." Allen said the EE bridge is needed "now, immediately".

Allen goes on to say that the EE Bridge is a huge opportunity for downtown, in that the new EE Bridge would alleviate traffic problems downtown and thus the need for a 23-lane-wide Spaghetti Junction, an albatross that would take up 40% of the ORBP project cost. He continued to say 15 years of construction downtown is economically unsustainable.

Robertson said we might find that after the East End Bridge is built, we might actually find out that we don't need a second I-65 bridge downtown, and that fixing Spaghetti Junction might be all we need to do. White also seemed to latch onto this notion when she said that we should see how the EE Bridge (and the necessary completion of the I-265 connection) goes before figuring out what to do downtown. I found these remarks especially compelling as I was wondering whether Tyler Allen was going to be the only one in the campaign who expressed thoughts like this.

The next tier of candidates basically said that building the EE Bridge first was logical from a design point of view, but that both bridges were ultimately necessary. Those candidates were Greg Fischer (D), Hal Heiner (R) and Connie Marshall (D).

Heiner declared the current I-65 bridge "unsafe" (yipes!) and that a second I-65 bridge was critical for the north-south corridor. I think many might disagree on both counts. The Kennedy Bridge is not even 50 years old and can be refurbished. As for the second claim, I thought a major purpose for the EE Bridge was to reroute true interstate traffic around the city, not just I-64 traffic, but also I-65 traffic. Therefore, a second downtown bridge seems much less critical.

The third tier of candidates seemed to insist the the bridges be built simultaneously, despite this not being contained in the ORBP plan. Those candidates were Jim King (D) and David Tandy (D). At least Tandy acknowledged the EE Bridge would proceed first, but the position these candidates took probably would seem delirious to even many of the most ardent "both bridges" supporters. No matter how you cut it, it's just plain stupid to proceed on both at once, as you can't tie up downtown with construction with no EE Bridge to route traffic around the city.

The fourth tier of candidates, really just one candidate, Jackie Green (I), said that no bridges should be built until the city has a first-class public transit system. Green continues his campaign habit of saying we can't do something until we have his perfect world first. Not pragmatic.

---

The second question was "Should existing Ohio River Bridges be tolled to pay for the ORBP?" (41:20 to 48:25 on the broadcast). This presumably means the Sherman Minton, George Rogers Clark (2nd Street) and Kennedy Bridges.

The candidates who answered with an unequivocal "No" were Tyler Allen and Jackie Green.

Allen called the tolls a "tax" and that the project wouldn't be so costly if we concentrated on the EE Bridge, which alone solves most of the system issues of the whole ORBP. He also complained about the utter lack of transparency coming from the bridges authority. Green thought there were too many unanswered questions.

The next tier of candidates answered with a qualified "No" in that they weren't in favor of tolling existing bridges, they might make an exception for tolling high occupancy traffic lanes. Those candidates were Chris Thieneman and Shannon White.

The third tier of candidates answered with a "No" but their explanations made them sound like they were actually saying "Yes, but". Those candidates were Greg Fischer, Jim King, Hal Heiner and David Tandy.

Heiner and Fischer seemed to say tolling was inevitable, but we should at least preserve the 2nd Street Bridge from tolling (how sweet of them!). To Fischer's credit, he said we need more transparency from the bridges authority.

King said 'No' but then said he would like to see all possible funding options on the table before making decisions. While that has the veneer of a fair answer, it came off to me as a too-perfect politician's answer, a "Yes, but" answer.... Yes, but we'll fund the project in other ways too.

Tandy didn't say 'No' but he at least tried to make tolling not seem so bad if we structured it in a fair way, such as local residents paying lower tolls. He also said that perhaps private funding of the project could be brought into the picture (private funding of public projects??).

The candidates who seemed to think tolling existing bridges was all right without mentioning any qualification were Connie Marshall and Jonathan Robertson. Robertson thinks there is no other feasible way to fund the construction, and Marshall said that since that's how other cities do it, it makes sense.

---

What do you think of the above stances? I thought they were so illuminating that you needed to know about them, but how do you think we should sort them out?

Steve Magruder — LouHI Administrator and web programmer


Please become a fan of Louisville History & Issues on Facebook

On tolling existing bridges, you wrote "The candidates who answered with an unequivocal "No" were Tyler Allen and Jackie Green. "

I think that pretty much settles this election. Could someone talk Jackie into coming to work for Tyler so we can put this election mess behind us and start getting ready for Derby?

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

My wife attended and took copious notes on the debates, and I tell ya what: I really like Jackie Green's position on bridges, schools, and transportation. I hope he continues to fight for a *no* bridges option. Maybe then we could put that bazillion million dollars towards projects that will make it unnecessary for anyone to have to drive their car into the city.

I also like Tyler's position, of course. I wonder if he would be open to a *no* bridges option?

Eric- I love green transportation as much as the next guy but we're putting our heads in the sand if we ignore that all rural, and most suburban, citizens need REAL options, not fictional dreams. And you can't sit all cozy in the city and punish country folk for living where they live. Because they will cut off your supply of food. Don't mess with my inner-hoosier!

Curtis! I must have forgotten to congratulate you on your new job! How long have you been on the Courier Journal's editorial board? "Putting our heads in the sand?" Maybe Jackie needs to "get in line?"

Also, punish country folks by providing viable public transportation options that would be *better* than driving? I think the current system is punishment enough!

ericbakes wrote:

I hope he continues to fight for a *no* bridges option. Maybe then we could put that bazillion million dollars towards projects that will make it unnecessary for anyone to have to drive their car into the city. I also like Tyler's position, of course. I wonder if he would be open to a *no* bridges option?

People would think that not building the east end the bridge is a good thing need to face reality. That bridge is a good thing for downtown Louisville. It will help lower pollution because through traffic will flow through the area quicker and not pass through downtown. The kind of traffic that is going to use the east end bridge is not a target for any kind of local mass transit system anyway. If this reality had been faced years ago and the bridge was finished then Louisville would be much better today.

While building the downtown bridge and renovating spaghetti junction is certainly open to discussion for many reasons including cost and disruption of the waterfront, there are no such problems facing the east end bridge. The only people who object to it a special interest groups who are pushing their own agenda and they do not recognize the good of the community.

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