Monday, January 12, 2009

8664: Stemler, the study, and digging a bit deeper (Part 1)

A recent Tribune article detailing the misrepresentation of the 8664 plan in a study commissioned by Kentucky state transportation officials was unfortunately marred by misleading statements from Kerry Stemler, a Hoosier and member of the Build the Bridges Coalition’s Executive Committee.

Aside from his snide and inaccurate assertion that 8664 is nothing more than “pretty pictures”, Stemler objected to the plan on two points: that it doesn’t address congestion coming from the west in New Albany and that a lack of concern for Indiana’s needs have rendered the plan “detrimental to what’s going on our side of the river”.

Neither is true.

Before examining Stemler’s claims, however, it’s important to understand the context in which his Build the Bridges Coalition operates. As Hoosiers who’ve long supported the construction of an East End Bridge are well aware, that particular span was officially adopted as part of the region’s transportation plans in 1969. It was reaffirmed in those plans in 1978 and 1993.

For decades, a small but wealthy contingent of Kentucky property owners, via a group called River Fields, has fought the construction of the East End Bridge. It wasn’t Hoosier citizens, elected Indiana officials, nor even traffic engineers who purposely complicated matters by introducing a downtown bridge proposal in 1994.

That year, Louisville’s Downtown Development Corporation (DDC), a private group with strong ties to both River Fields and Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson but no public accountability, released a study suggesting that Spaghetti Junction congestion could only be eased by attaching the interchange to an additional downtown bridge. The DDC’s relationship with Abramson, who has over the years unilaterally approved the transfer of millions of dollars from Louisville coffers to the organization, has become so suspect that members of the city’s Metro Council recently filed open records requests in an effort to at least track how the money is spent.

Even though that relationship and the study’s bridge conclusion were and are still disputed, River Fields seized the obstructionist opportunity and, under the leadership of then president Jim Welch, released a plan for a Downtown Bridge within months.

The Downtown Bridge proposal was introduced not to suggest the construction of an additional bridge, however, but as a mechanism to further fight the eastern one. As Kentucky politics boiled, Hoosiers had no voice in the matter and their concerns were ignored even as public polls at the time continued to show overwhelming support for the eastern bridge.

As the green of Hoosier’s east end referencing “Build the Bridge” bumper stickers faded, consistent lobbying and delay tactics from River Fields and their allies continued to divert attention from the majority opinion to the point that years passed before a still contentious “political compromise” was reached, backing the region into a corner with a monstrous, all or nothing $4.1 billion Ohio River Bridges Project (ORBP) that we’ve yet to and may never figure out how to finance.

For some, that was the point. Of the two bridges, one project plan, even our governor, Mitch Daniels, said in the News and Tribune, “The 'one project' idea - I think for some people - it was a tactic to delay the whole project."

It’s worth noting that, according to ORBP estimates, Indiana currently has the money in hand to build the East End Bridge and its corresponding northern approach – twice – while incurring no debt. The delayed Kentucky approach, already more costly owing to mass and length, was made tens of millions of dollars more expensive and thus more difficult to finance with the inclusion of a 2,000 feet long tunnel that, according to River Fields’ pressure tactics, is necessary to protect a single historic estate.

Tellingly, River Fields, who supposedly counts historic preservation among its concerns, has advocated for a plan that would demolish numerous historic structures downtown and in nearby areas to facilitate a bridge, a grossly expanded Spaghetti Junction, and a widened I-65 there.

In recent years, Jim Welch, the previously noted former River Fields leader and East End bridge opponent, was named Chair of the DDC. The DDC, in turn, helped create the Build the Bridges Coalition and Welch became a member of its executive committee. Questions as to why a staunch opponent of the East End Bridge was given such a prominent role in pursuing financing for the Bridges Project have gone unanswered.

Interestingly, another founding member of the Coalition dependent on Abramson’s support, Greater Louisville Incorporated (GLI), may have provided early impetus for exploring the removal of Interstate 64 from Louisville’s waterfront even before 8664 was formed. Though admittedly unconfirmed, a reliable source has publicly stated that Louisville entrepreneur Doug Cobb, founder of the Cobb Group, CEO of Appriss, and former GLI president, was impressed enough with other cities’ success in removing their waterfront expressways that he had the group travel to study them as possible best practice. The following GLI president also supposedly supported the expressway removal idea. Outside of speculation about Abramson’s and River Fields' influence, the group’s about face concerning local interstate initiatives remains largely unexplained.

Though Louisville, New Albany, and Jeffersonville governments have all ceded leadership to them, the Build the Bridges Coalition is a private organization and, like the DDC, has no public accountability even though its membership consists of several groups who receive public funding. Two of its founding organizational members have documented and/or reported histories that do not all match the group’s stated objectives, qualified professionals have publicly refuted factual claims made by the group but have received no response, information about decision making methodology has often been available only through legal challenges and the public has almost no input into the process at all.

Regardless of intentions, that’s the situation that One Southern Indiana helped exacerbate under Kerry Stemler’s leadership when they joined the Coalition and the one he continues to support in his capacity as an executive committee member.

Next time, we’ll begin looking at his published claims.

* a small portion of the above was paraphrased from the 8664 web site history section.

17 comments:

John Gonder said...

"It’s worth noting that, according to ORBP estimates, Indiana currently has the money in hand to build the East End Bridge and its corresponding northern approach – twice – while incurring no debt."

Wouldn't this qualify as "shovel ready", the trigger for the application of federal stimulus funding?

I'm no fan of either bridge. If we are truly serious about environmental protection, curtailment of global warming and reduction of sprawl, we need to address transportaion issues at a more basic level, by laying the groundwork for transportaion beyond the automobile. We should try to move beyond the idea of accommodating more traffic, regardless of where the bridge is located.

Having said that, the downtown bridge is particularly wrong-headed. It threatens downtown Jeffersonville with a scythe of "progress" which may prove to be as detrimental as the wholesale destruction visited on cities through Urban Renewal projects of the 1950s-60s.

Since the state has been backed into a corner, we're faced with a choice between two evils. So, build the eastern bridge. Period.

G Coyle said...

Huh? River Fields fights against an East End Bridge, 8664 fights against a downtown bridge, and...

“After decades of delays and obstruction, the community finally reached a political compromise to build both an East End and Downtown Bridge.”

That’s what I call a bold compromise - to do everything anyone opposes. Maybe I don’t understand this whole bridges thing...

For the record I'm against any new bridge.

jon faith said...

The Publican must be swamped. Imagine my surprise when I scanned his blog horizon today and found nary a mention from yesterday's NYT: not the Op-Ed piece by Bono nor the Business front piece concerning McDonald's: it and Walmart were the only two Dow Jones Industrials to increase in share price in 2008.

ecology warrior said...

it should be pointed out that the southern indiana chamber of commerce endorsed a downtown bridge in the arly 1990's to placate the louisville political interests and our honorable mayor doug england signed on to the downtown bridge as well because he was beholden to louisville developers and political interests, so I would ask mayor doug where he stands on the east end bridge now, after all he says he is all about new albany and southern indiana economic development

lawguy said...

Gina, we'll give you a continuing objection to anything "new" to save reiteration. From now on, you can just cut & paste...

"For the record, I object to the new ______________".

All teasing aside, I would tend to agree with John Gonder, that the downtown bridge is a disaster in waiting, and while the east end bridge isnt ideal, its the better of the two ideas.

I would be curious about learned ideas for moving our metropolitan area to transportation beyond the automobile. Its a fascinating idea and makes me wonder what other similarly sized cities (comparable to "Louisville Metro") have a mass transit system beyond city buses.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Lawguy,

That's a really good question with a somewhat confusing answer, especially since the merger.

Try the Wikipedia link below. It lists cities in order by population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

It also lists the density of those cities which helps some in sorting for similarity.

Using those criteria, the two most similar cities seem to be Portland and Las Vegas.

While Las Vegas has only buses, Portland is a long recognized national leader in light rail, street cars. etc. They also tore down their first waterfront expressway (1974) not long after we completed ours (late 60's).

In some cases, it might be more helpful to compare Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) which include surrounding counties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_statistical_areas_by_population

Some of those MSA's get real sparse real quickly, though. The Louisville MSA, for instance, runs from Elizabethtown all the way to Scottsburg so the density problem is still a problem.

Christopher D said...

Bridges, traffic studies, etc...
Our of my rhelm of interest, honestly take down a bridge, add a new one, wont make that big of a difference to me, I tend to stay on this side of the river...
My concerns are aligned with Mr. Gonders.
Has studies been done to evaluate the environmental impact on building another bridge, whether downtown, or east end?
How will the preparation for foundations and construction of the bridge(s) effect the Ohio River Eco-system, and instead, Like John had said, catering to making life easier for more traffic, how far could we get with spending that money on a light rail system, park it and Tarc it incentives, etc...
With technology, and the market creating a niche for smaller, more fuel efficient cars (smaller being the key word), in 10, 15, or 20 years will there even be a need for another bridge?
Though it may be nice for the here and now, will we spend countless millions of dollars, a decade of construction, for an item that will be dimished and value and usefulness 5 years after its completed?

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Yes, environmental studies have been done. It's part of the federal approval process.

The East End Bridge is necessary to complete a bypass around the city, not just to aid the flow of actual interstate (lower case "i") traffic but to remove much of it and it's neighborhood destroying infrastructure from downtown, since downtown isn't where the traffic is going anyway.

By concentrating people-friendly development and amenities along the river, as 8664 does, we take an important step away from car-centric development and help to create the density that makes mass transit more easily accomplished.

By making the river more attractive, we also help our own downtown neighborhoods both by better connecting them to those amenities and by improving the Louisville neighborhoods directly across from us which, fairly or unfairly, are often blamed for our crime problems.

Christopher D said...

Thanks Bluegill, that answers alot

Daniel S said...

Considering the financial pinch Kentucky is in, I don't see funding coming anytime soon. It's a hard sale when the majority of Kentucky is rural and could care less about Louisville.

Dan Chandler said...

The Courier Journal recently had a good article on Louisville’s waterfront development.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090102/NEWS01/901020420/1008

The articles referrers to $1.3 billion of new private investment downtown, investment helped along by turning waterfront scrap yards into waterfront green space.

Developers who invest their own money in an urban condo or office project obviously would rather have that project near an attractive park instead of near a scrap yard. The bricks and mortar cost the same either way but you can sell the end product for a lot more if it’s in a nice location, location, location.

Currently that park has an interstate running through it. Some developers have done some projects downtown already. More developers would be willing to risk their shirts on downtown projects if the neighborhood did not have an interstate running through it. Again, condos next to a park without an interstate are worth more than condos next to an interstate. As has been seen in other cities, removing the waterfront freeway causes new waterfront private investment.

I saved this article for another reason. For me, Water Front Park in Louisville was a no brainer. But the very idea was ridiculed at first. No one could envision downtown Louisville as a place where families would buy a home or take their children to play. Very long term vision pushed by tremendous persistence made it happen.

New Albany has been improving its water front and its downtown. But there’s much more that can be done. I know it may seem impossibly utopian, but the sewer plant needs to be moved. The West End will never reach its full potential as long as it is within smell distance of raw sewage. The plant is never in compliance with EPA. Let’s settle this matter once and for all by building a new plant further down river. If someone else in the area is looking to build a new sewer plant, maybe we can get a two-for-one deal….or at least some economies of scale.

Undeveloped Jeffersonville waterfront properties can fetch millions of dollars per acre. New Albany waterfront properties…..not so much. The area along the flood wall could increase in value dramatically if (1) we moved the sewer plant and (2) removed other non contributing structures. You don’t see metal sheds/pole barns in downtown Jeffersonville. It’s not predetermined that people in downtown New Albany will never see something better.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Spot on, Dan.

If anyone ever wants to see/feel/smell an example that well demonstrates what Dan speaks of, go to the top level of the Ali Center and step out onto what should and could be a balcony overlooking a beautiful riverfront.

The wind, noise, and fumes aren't of the natural variety.

8664 held their 2nd annual forum there this year and probably could have made their point in absolute silence.

ecology warrior said...

hey Dan, what do you mean the sewer plant is never in compliance with the EPA? They meet the consent decree monthly under the mgmt of EMC where did you get that erroneous information? Move the plant, that is completely asinine after all the work that has been put into upgrading and increasing its capacity, also if you move the plant then the lift stations and force mains will have to be redirected.

Its obvious you dont understand sewer infrastrucure issues so I would suggest moving to Louisville if you are so gung ho about their waterfront. I grant you that the riverfornt could be cleaned up of the other structures that degrade the development potential, of course that also means a private developer would have to buy up the recycling operation , assorted junk yards, maybe the strip club owned by mattingly would be a good eyesore to sell off, oh wait thats mayor doug's buddy that will never be on the chopping block.

Ok Dan, you got any more brilliant ideas?

Dan Chandler said...

@ecology

Moving the sewer plant would not be easy, would not be quick, and would not be cheap. But before we dismiss it as a bad idea, an idea unworthy of study, we should first seriously weigh both the costs and the benefits. No one has done this yet.

Imagine a sewer plant on Jeffersonville's waterfront and image the effect it would have on property values. The new hotels, the restaurants, the offices all would be worth a fraction of their current values. The difference between Jeff with and without a sewer plant is a cost we do not see. We don't see it but we pay it every day. There are economic development tools that may be able to harness such a land value difference and fund such a project.

If serious study showed that west end land would be worth say $10 million more without a sewer plant, would that change your mind? Could it be worth $10 million more? I don't know. But it's something I believe to be worthy of study.

G Coyle said...

“Developers who invest their own money in an urban condo or office project obviously would rather have that project near an attractive park instead of near a scrap yard. The bricks and mortar cost the same either way but you can sell the end product for a lot more if it’s in a nice location, location, location.”

Slightly off the point here, myself and many other artists in Louisville have been very fond (for years) of those scrap yards you disparage dear Dan. While I’d love to see 64 removed from the Waterfront, at the same, it could be short-sighted to divorce ourselves completely from the 300 year working history of the waterfront. I’m glad it’s not choking with foundry’s anymore, don’t get me wrong. Restoring the river eco-system and it’s banks is obviously a win-win. But can we save some pieces of the working history, the wharfs, ship-yards, mills, quarries, even scrap yards, of which there really isn’t much left. I realize this is an aside to the point of this thread, sorry. Transportation infrastructure obviously has to be continually upgraded here, we are a hub, and we’ve always been a hub. I’m convinced those upgrades and waterfront reclaimation can happen at the same time, but Dan, if you remove much more industrial-age stuff, including industrial uses of the riverfront, like picaresque scrap-yards, you will lose the vibrant artists community that has grown up in that old industrial age wonderland. Will are Grandchildren mutter - “How could they have taken out that amazing mid-20th century highway on the river, you’d never be able to build a highway on a river now?! Progress always and inevitably, but with mindfulness of what our cultural souls need.

ps. ...science and technology may have an answer to the sewer plant dilemma soon. It isn’t necessarily either/or.

B.W. Smith said...

...and that's the problem with places like New Albany. Anything new, different, or creative gets immediately squelched. We're not even allowed to speculate on how things might be better.

I don't know anything about sh*t plants, but I can imagine the benefit of not having one on the waterfront.

Iamhoosier said...

But, Brandon, you went to school in Terre Haute. You have to know about SMELL!!

Mark