Wednesday, March 04, 2009
8664: A video is worth 2 billion dollars...and a few words for our future.
From an 8664.org press release:
Louisville, KY – Today the founders of 8664 released a 90 second video rendering of Waterfront Parkway. The video was developed as a result of the recently released traffic study by the Kentucky transportation cabinet (“KYTC”), which confirmed that a one-bridge solution (East End Bridge only) will provide 99% of the “system-wide performance” compared to the proposed $4.1 billion Ohio River Bridges Project.
“The State’s traffic study reaffirms that the East End Bridge, not a Downtown Bridge or expanded Spaghetti Junction, will have the greatest positive effect on regional traffic flow. So we developed this video to help citizens visualize a one-bridge solution. Louisville’s future should be determined by the people who live here, not transportation engineers,” said Tyler Allen, co-founder of 8664.
KYTC’s single-bridge alternative traffic study was released in December. The study compares the current two-bridge project with an alternative that includes only the East End Bridge and a simplified Spaghetti Junction. Like 8664, the studied alternative replaced the elevated I-64 on Louisville’s waterfront with a four-lane parkway. The study measured the region’s system-wide performance in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) and found that the alternative performed virtually identically to the Bridges Project.
“This traffic study indicates that we don’t need tolls or a 23 lane wide Spaghetti Junction. What we need is for people to visualize what Louisville can be if we embrace a better, less expensive alternative to the Bridges Project,” Stites said.
The 90-second animation begins above a simplified Spaghetti Junction and travels west along Louisville’s waterfront. It pauses at three specific points to reveal detailed renderings of Waterfront Park’s Great Lawn without I-64, the intersection of Waterfront Parkway and 9th Street and the western portion of Waterfront Park from 16th Street.
Allen added, “Our hope is that when citizens see this they will realize that what is good for our waterfront is good for the entire region. Building the East End Bridge can benefit the East End and New Albany, as much as the West End, Jeffersonville and Old Louisville.”
Additional information is available at www.8664.org. Co-founders, Tyler Allen and JC Stites are available for comment upon request.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Tks, BG. This is seminal, important, critical. Do we know if the Ky. Leg. authorized TOLLS tonight?
Glad you spotlighted this. It might be the most important think NAC has advocated for.
Build the East End Bridge Now!
Thing! (ugh)...a plug for comment editing, given our propensity for lubricated comments
I agree with the use of "think". It's possibly the biggest single influence our region will experience in at least the next couple of decades. This is a fight for the soul of the region.
That's a powerful presentation.
It really is, I've forwarded it to a few people now and the responses I've heard back are "What? Spaghetti Junction will get worse?" People just don't seem to know, all they hear about are new bridges and they just assume that's a good thing.
People just don't seem to know, all they hear about are new bridges and they just assume that's a good thing.
And that's just the way Kerry Stemler, 1SI, the Bridges Coalition, and their supporters like Develop New Albany want it.
Spaghetti Junction is nowhere to be found in their videos.
But don't take my word for it.
Check them for yourself and see how embarrassingly deceptive they are.
Thanks for the link, Bluegill. Not surprising that they wouldn't want to show the mess that Spaghetti Junction would become...
Just for the record, I’ve attended every DNA board meeting and virtually every DNA sponsored event for the last 18 months. Bluegill has not. In that time, I’ve never once heard anyone at any time discuss the bridges project. DNA focuses its energies elsewhere. During that time, there has been little discussion about 1SI. Jeff’s implication of DNA as a supporter of two new bridges is unfounded and unfair. DNA has never advocated the issue on either side of the debate. While I’m sure Jeff will follow this post with a diatribe of anti-DNA anecdotes, a connection between DNA and two-bridge forces does not exists.
Isn't this the perfect opportunity for those council members who assert their progressive inclinations and independence to propose a resolution taking a stand on the bridges project ... and I think we know which side of that coin in the progressive one.
DNA focuses its energies elsewhere.
Why do we focus elsewhere when the rationale behind the two bridges is diametrically opposed to what we're supposed to be advocating?
I'll answer the question for you: Because we're afraid to take a stand on anything for fear of offending people whose annoyance with us would be the best indication that we're on the right track.
Dan,
You can shoot the messenger if you like, but facts remain:
Before DNA signed on in support of 1SI, Director Mike Dalby made clear to the DNA Board both verbally and in the printed material he distributed that Bridges Project support and advocacy was a top priority for 1SI. DNA joined 1SI.
Since then, 1SI has continued to do exactly what Dalby said they would with respect to the Bridges Project in the name of it's members. DNA is included in that number not by some random, uncontrollable circumstance but because the organization knowingly and purposefully chose to be.
3. At no time, to my knowledge, has DNA ever issued any sort of statement distancing itself from the Bridges advocacy that they knew would occur and are aware is occurring.
Roger, My post was solely looking backwards, a statements about DNA’s past (non) involvement. Looking forward, I’m very open to what DNA should do. You’re a DNA board member. If you or another board member want to offer an 86-64 resolution at next week’s board meeting, I may very well vote for the resolution. Personally, I’m against a downtown bridge and I’m interested in what I can do to help cause a more reasonable, more pro-downtown solution. However, I need to be convinced that DNA’s stand has a material chance of influencing the relevant decision makers. If there is little chance of influence here by DNA, a position on this matter by DNA might only alienate the organization and thus hamper its ability to achieve its other worthy goals.
Jeff, In the post above, you singled out DNA as a 1SI support and (by default) a two-bridge supporter. 1SI has hundreds of members, including many member businesses I presume you patronize on a daily basis. You did not single out one of those 1SI members. How many of them have directly taken positions on the bridges project? My opinion is that you singled out DNA for unfair reasons, possibly reasons that have nothing to do with bridges. Repeatedly going out of your way to slight the organization does not advance the dialogue. Your point could have been made equally as well without misinformation about DNA’s positions.
First, it wasn't misinformation.
Second, to my knowledge, none of those other businesses or organizations exist solely to promote the preservation and revitalization of downtown, i.e., their stated missions do not directly conflict with the stated intent and actions of 1SI. If and when they state missions that do directly conflict and they continue to support 1SI's actions in spite of them, I'll acknowledge them as contradictory as well.
In cases where, within my knowledge, that has occurred, I've done so. Mayor England is an example. I've both spoken to him about it personally and written about it here.
Third, none of those other businesses or organizations assured me that if they ever disagreed with 1SI's stances, they'd make it clear that they did. Because DNA did make that assurance and hasn't chosen to express any disagreement, the logical conclusion is that DNA agrees with 1SI's Bridges advocacy.
Fourth, I do not repeatedly go out of my way to slight DNA. In fact, I most often choose to remain silent about many issues that, in my opinion, directly relate to them. I continue to help with projects or activities that have their name on it when asked. I did so just a couple of weeks ago.
The Bridges Project is, with the exception of building the interstates themselves, the single largest, most consequential project our area downtowns have experienced in most of our lifetimes. DNA, to my knowledge, is the single organization in New Albany who has billed itself as subscribing to a downtown-centric philosophy. As such, they are the logical choice to speak about the Bridges.
Dialogue can only occur if potential participants are willing to take up relevant questions. Develop New Albany is well aware that this particular question has existed for years now. Thus far, they've chosen not to address it.
Should they choose to, I'd be glad to participate in that dialogue if they wish.
Sounds good, Dan. I'll see what I can put together for the next board meeting. Did Tyler Allen ever speak to us before? Maybe it is time.
Jeff, Roger,
For me to support DNA’s involvement in this issue, you must convince me that the answer to the following two questions is “Yes.”
1. Does 86-64 clearly benefit downtown NA? And, if so,
2. Can support of the issue by DNA materially improve the chance of a east end bridge only solution?
If you cannot clearly answer “Yes” to both those issues, this is not a DNA issue, in my opinion.
- Does 86-64 clearly benefit downtown NA
I believe it clearly benefits the region. I believe it clearly benefits Louisville’s downtown. I believe it clearly benefits commercial property owners along the Lee Hamilton.
But downtown New Albany?
Many downtown merchants receive spontaneous visits from through travels, travelers who see a little town off the interstate and decide the stop by and shop. What do you tell those merchants?
I have no idea how our new winery owner’s view 86-64. However, if I had a downtown NA winery, I might try to maximize business by putting a sign on I-64, not the lesser traveled I-164.
I personally have no doubt that tearing down downtown Louisville portion of 64 would accelerate new construction and rehabilitations of downtown Louisville properties. I also believe in my gut that new regional focus on downtown living brought about by tearing down the interstate would trickle over into New Albany. If people in the region in general see a stellar example of quality downtown living, people will see in a new light the possibilities of living in downtown NA. At least, that would be the hope.
However, it’s hard for me to prove that that’s much more than wishful thinking. If new downtown NA condos are built, one of their selling points will be proximity to Louisville. You tear down the interstate, and parts of Louisville become much less proximate.
While I personally support a one bridge solution, have for years subscribed to 86-64’s emails, and have donated my owner money to this cause, it’s the New Urbanist and the regionalist in me that does this. I’m not sure that regional interest and NA interest here are not somewhat in conflict. Before I vote for DNA as an organization to support this cause, I must be convinced that they are not in conflict.
- Can support of the issue by DNA materially improve the chance of a east end bridge only solution?
What sort of “support” might DNA lend? Is this simply a vote of confidence, one that decision makers in Indianapolis, Frankfort and Washington will likely never know about even if they cared? Is it protest? Lobbying? If DNA becomes a Lobbying organization, what other issues come with that? I have no problem opening up my wallet as an individual, but what additional advantage is there to using the auspices of the organization?
I believe it would be an excellent idea for DNA members to listen to Tyler Allen’s presentation. Maybe DNA can sponsor a broader educational event. But so far, I’m unconvinced that this is DNA’s fight.
Wow.
Many downtown merchants receive spontaneous visits from through travels, travelers who see a little town off the interstate and decide the stop by and shop. What do you tell those merchants?
I'd tell them not to worry, since nothing about 1-64 changes on this side of the bridge.
Can support of the issue by DNA materially improve the chance of a east end bridge only solution?
Given the realities of what DNA is capable of materially doing on any issue, our dog's or someone else's, isn't this question moot?
I'd really hate to think that the truth of a proposition depends on the relative strength or weakness of the entity professing it, because if that's true, there are very few issues falling inside DNA's circle of influence.
What does DNA's material chances of influencing the debate have to do with taking a stand on it?
Disappointing, Dan.
Nothing about 1-64 changes on this side of the bridge.
Yes it does. People driving from Virginia to St. Louis will no longer pass through downtown NA. I’m not saying this should be the overriding argument, but it’s an argument that’s out there. As a downtown resident, I’d love nothing more than less traffic on the Sherman Minton but I also can see how a downtown merchant might see it otherwise.
What does DNA's material chances of influencing the debate have to do with taking a stand on it?
Everything. This is in no way a statement on DNA’s potential influence. I suppose it’s a philosophical difference between us. If I’m solely interested in results, why would I be interested in principled stands that have no effect? Another person’s principles might say chase every good cause. My principles say it’s a waste of resources to not target your energies where you have the maximum possibility of making a difference.
Again, this is all very abstract because I’m not sure what support from DNA is being requested. If it’s a statement of principles in support of one-bridge, that’s one thing. Are we talking about something more from DNA?
I personally don't see why your answer about regional development spilling over into New Albany isn't enough, nor do I see how going against the principles espoused by the Main Street approach would be helpful to a Main Street organization but:
New Albany's direct connection to Louisville is via West Louisville. I think you agree that 8664 stands to improve that area greatly. Thus, our most immediate connection to Louisville would become stronger. It's the exact same principle that, from a market perspective, drives the notion of code enforcement and clean up and led to YMCA endorsement. What we're next to matters.
8664 actually makes downtown Louisville more accessible than does the Bridges Project (or the current configuration) for half the price. 8664 would provide multiple access points to the downtown Louisville street grid while the Bridges Project would not. And, again, as you noted, downtown Louisville would be greatly improved, making our connection to it a stronger selling point. Connectivity to other parts of Louisville aren't substantially affected.
For largely the same reasons, our Greenway efforts and expenditures are enhanced by 8664. The Bridges Project is detrimental to them.
Think of reopening the K&I bridge, long a goal of Downtown New Albany advocates. What's on the other side that would currently draw people to it? The Bridges Project would mean even less positive draw than there is now.
The Bridges Project destroys several historic properties that 8664 does not. If you're a preservationist, that's an issue in favor of 8664.
While east/west interstate traffic through downtown New Albany might be decreased and a relatively few accidental tourists with it, north/south traffic would stand to be increased with the completion and encouraged use of a bypass.
8664, at half the estimated cost, includes funding to rebuild the I-64/I-264 interchange just north of New Albany's downtown. The Bridges Project's $4 billion price tag doesn't address that interchange at all.
Many New Albanians navigate Spaghetti Junction regularly. Simplifying it, as 8664 does, would make it safer and less time consuming for them. The Bridges Project would spend a substantial share of project funding to make it larger and more complicated while doing nothing to solve the fundamental problem of merging three interstates in a single area.
New Albany's riverfront masterplan includes a potential mass transit hub or station. Everyone that I've ever spoken to about it agrees that increased mass transit connections with Louisville would be a boon to downtown New Albany. By encouraging urban density rather than the exurban sprawl that the Bridges Project does, 8664 makes those connections more feasible.
One of our major regional challenges is to retain and attract the talent necessary for economic success. 8664 attracts it. The Bridges Project repels it. As national trends point to a return to urbanism and increased appreciation of more sustainable, less auto-centric transportation systems, Louisville and, by association, New Albany would be shouting our ignorance to the world via the Bridges Project.
There's a reason the Bridges Project is one of only three or four similarly sized auto projects in the country. Bluntly put, smart, forward thinking people don't want them. In terms of message to the demographic that typically helps revitalize urban centers, not speaking up for better options isn't exactly going to help dispel backward stereotypes associated with the region. Silence is tacit approval, not just from DNA but from everyone.
Hoosiers have long favored the East End Bridge. Polls conducted for decades have shown that. East End Bridge opponents are using the Bridges Project as a mechanism to fight the East End Bridge. Very recent funding maneuvers show that. 8664 is currently the only major movement that prioritizes the East End Bridge.
Bridges Project advocates favor tolls to pay for the project. If tolls become a reality, commuting patterns show that Floyd and Clark County residents will pay them approximately fifteen times more than their Jefferson County, KY, counterparts. It will make New Albany a less attractive place to live for those who work in Louisville and a less attractive destination for those who live in Louisville.
According to the most recent traffic study projections, 8664 and the Bridges Project achieve system wide performance results within one percentage point of each other. Why would anyone want to spend twice as much, including New Albany's share of road construction/maintenance dollars, to achieve the same traffic results while also giving up the benefits provided by 8664?
I largely agree with Roger on the second question. I would add, though, that "success" can be defined in different ways. Helping get 8664 implemented is the overall goal. However, advocating for it has a very positive secondary benefit.
There is a substantial regional and national demographic in favor of 8664 based on their understanding of New Urbanism, historic preservation, environmental and fiscal responsibilities, and quality of life issues. These are the very same people we need to draw to New Albany's revitalization cause. It's a larger group than Develop New Albany has ever connected with and they already agree, at least in principle, that revitalizing downtown New Albany is a worthwhile endeavor.
I can't think of a single regional issue on the table that would better communicate to them that, no matter what ultimately happens, New Albany gets it. What they want is what we want. We're on their side. There's strong reason they should join us as kindred spirits, either by becoming a resident or by visiting regularly. And the more DNA or any of us advocate for 8664, the more that will be communicated.
Conversely, the people most likely to be alienated by 8664 advocacy are those who don't identify with the principles mentioned. They aren't and stand very little chance of ever becoming our target market or major supporters anyway. So, in actuality, there's little to lose.
Jeff,
I agree with you that DNA adopting this position could help create a more progressive imagine for the organization, a benefit which was not previously discussed in this thread. I also like tying in the K&I bridge aspect, to me what could be the most direct benefit to NA. While I recall many blank stares when once suggesting the organization promote “green retrofitting of existing downtown buildings,” I also received similar blank stairs when we first discussed the NMTC application. One proposal moved forward while one fif not. The difference is that I could articulate a doable roadmap for the NMTCs while I could not articulate a doable (read “affordable”) roadmap for the green-retrofitting. Point, blank stares can sometimes translate into the beginning of action, but you need a doable plan, or at least the beginnings of one.
From what I hear, the lead on the K&I right-of-way acquisition so far solely as been a Louisville government effort. I’m curious your thoughts on what NA government can do to prompt this along.
Roger,
Are you going to try and get Mr. Allen on Thursday's agenda? If you’re still planning on bringing something up for a vote, I’m curious on the exact proposed language.
I don't think that Thursday is the right time to bring Tyler to a DNA meeting.
I don't know how I would phrase a potential resolution. First I might like to see if we have any intention of ever getting involved in anything of this nature prior to deciding if it's a good use of my time.
That's because I don't have very much time right now. Yes, I know I'm not the only one, and no, that's not an excuse.
The fact remains that DNA is afraid to offend those whose annoyance would be the best sign that we're on the right track. After two years of membership, I can't really figure it out, although I persist in believing that principle is the best aid to punching above your weight.
To be honest, I'm not sure I have the energy to try to educate the group on matters like this when they'll probably persist in being overly conservative, anyway.
In which case I'd be disappointed, when in reality, harder times call for radicalism. Affordability surely matters, but so does standing up for what's right.
The good news is that 8664 advocacy is largely free. Email announcements, press releases, newsletter articles, letters to the editor and public officials, hosting 8664 events, etc., cost little to nothing in the financial sense. The language can even be largely repeated to save time.
DNA has traditionally allowed and even encouraged individual members to plan and execute events under their banner quite a bit. I've never understood why 8664 should be treated any differently.
The K&I Bridge is a related issue but making it a focal point of advocacy doesn't really address the point at hand. To answer Dan's question, though, because of state boundaries, I'm not sure how much say New Albany or Indiana governments have in deciding the K&I's fate. It's not an issue I have hands on experience with.
Post a Comment