Big Four Bridge backers pin hopes on stimulus grants for Indiana ramp, by Ben Zion Hershberg (Courier-Journal).Think about that. Years behind Kentucky, although looking on the brighter side, the Commonwealth's Republicans just elected extremist nutjob Rand Paul to run for Senate, making it far easier for Jack Conway (D) to win the seat in the fall. Might Mitch Daniels devote a buck or two from Major Moves to a project that caters to wheels not powered by internal combustion engines?
Tucked along Kentucky’s Ohio River shoreline, the 1,700-foot concrete ramp spirals up to meet the Big Four railroad bridge — a four-year, $8 million project to transform the aging trestle into a cross-river recreation trail for pedestrians and bicyclists.
But across the river in Jeffersonville, the Big Four remains untouched, ending abruptly in a sheer 59-foot drop to the shore below — a product of stalled plans and a lack of funding that officials concede has put it years behind Kentucky’s progress.
Meanwhile, unintended irony abounds in the C-J piece, as with this passage:
They’re also seeking to pull $25 million from the Ohio River Bridges Project, arguing it would be less expensive and more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists to use the Big Four than a proposed pedestrian and bicycle lane on the new downtown bridge.Of course, absolutely the least expensive and most pleasant solution for a number of problems would be to scotch the planned downtown automotive bridge and use a fraction of the expense to improve bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure everywhere in Metro Louisville. Because it makes the most sense in the current age, it's naturally the least discussed option. Turns out that former Jeff mayor Rob Waiz never grasped it, either:
Waiz conceded (the Big Four) wasn’t a high priority. “Trying to bring in new businesses and jobs was my priority,” he said.As Brendan Behan once loudly proclaimed, "JAY-sus."
Reams of evidence from across America and the planet point to just such projects as the Big Four as impetus for business and job creation, assuming your're trying to send the right message to the right people running and creating the right jobs. In the face of this, inert politicians like Waiz can do no better than mimic the provincial dullards who populate this area, scratching their heads, peeling another banana and decrying the theory of evolution as their prospects steadily dwindle.
Come to think of it, they might be on to something about evolution. It doesn't seem to evolve all the time ... by maybe it's just something in our (storm) water.
29 comments:
"59 feet of dumbass,..."
Well said.
nice piece, I think devolution is possibly more of a scientific fact here than evolution.
Louisvillians also just put two guys through the mayoral primary who are just as dumb by overwhelming margins.
I'm sure they don't care because I don't have near enough nickels in my pocket nor the proper lobbyist (read as chamber of commerce) backing, but I'll not vote for anyone who supports the Ohio River Bridges Project for anything. Another foot or two of concrete dumbass is more than I can personally take.
They'll have to rely on the support of their favorite Wall Street hucksters in destroying our region. It looks like they're well on their way to getting it.
Speaking of which, where are all our "preservationists" in this? Their silence is unfortunately predictable and has far more impact here than in the occasional whimpering over a building or two.
Waiz conceded (the Big Four) wasn’t a high priority. “Trying to bring in new businesses and jobs was my priority,” he said.
I don't see the conflict. Look at the cities that are attracting all the jobs. They're typically the ones that have the highest quality of life.
If you're trying to attract minimum wage jobs, then you don't need good neighborhoods. If you're trying to attract talented, skilled workers, workers who are in demand and who can live anywhere, those are the workers who want to live somewhere with a high quality of life.
Speaking of which, where are all our "preservationists" in this? Their silence is unfortunately predictable and has far more impact here than in the occasional whimpering over a building or two.
Two points.
First, I agree with Jeff that Preservationists could play a more forceful role.
Second, Jeff again shows his unique ability to piss people off and be unproductive. Whining about Preservationists not coming to the rescue of your cause accomplishes nothing. Why Preservationists anyhow? Bikes and walking are public health issues too. Why not whine that the American Heart Association hasn't taken sides on the bridges project? Does it not affect their goals too? Jeff, next time you have a good idea, please try to express it in a manner that doesn't alienate.
Did anyone read the "Broken Sidewalk" blog page abot the Bridges Project?
We didn't realize the Second Street bridge entrance in Indiana next to Kye's will be demolished.
Quoting the blog (found at this link):
http://brokensidewalk.com/2010/05/14/bridges-project-turns-second-street-bridge-into-an-off-ramp/
"Next, lets take a closer look at what’s actually happening to one our most historic bridges: it’s being destroyed. It’s a little hard to see, but below is the current footprint of the Second Street Bridge overlaid on top of the ORBP plan. The arrow is pointing to two yellow dots representing the limestone pylons marking the entrance to the (Indiana) bridge.
Notice that the footprint of the now-a-highway-off-ramp bridge is over twice as wide as the existing bridge. What’s going to happen to the carved limestone pylons and the limestone guard rails by the sidewalk? And look at all the landscaped area to the west of the bridge that will be destroyed."
The entrance to the bridge on the Indiana side is worthy of being preserved.
The difference, Dan, is that I realize I piss some people off.
I'd submit that nearly the sum total of preexisting investment in our riverfront communities is worth not only preserving but of productive, sustainable usage. That any of it is historic is one piece of a much larger situation. The ORBP devalues our urban landscapes in their totality.
I certainly don't disagree that the 2nd Street bridge is of concern, but I think we often do ourselves harm by fixating too much on specific artifacts rather than the overall policies that subsidize the extinction of all of them.
The very process of treating something as a historic artifact often implicitly reinforces the idea that it has no or at least reduced contemporary viability and should be handled as an individual exception rather than a rule.
I'd be happy to be able to ride my bike over the K&I bridge. Is there any good reason not to open it up to wlakers and bikers?
Matt, what I have been told is that the railroad is the naysayer--they believe it is a security risk to allow pedestrians access to the K&I.
Matt,
The nominal reason given by the railroad is fear of terrorism. Since anyone seeking to bomb the bridge tonight would only need to ignore the "No Trespassing" sign and step over a small chain, it's obvious that the "terrorism" claim is a fig leaf and has nothing to do with the real issue. I suspect the real issue is a combination of (1) fear of tort liability and/or (2) just not wanting to fool with it. But the ultimate reason why you cannot bike across the K&I is because local governments on both sides of the river have refused to use eminent domain.
Jeff, I agree with what you're saying, just not how you're saying it.
There are about 37,000 people in New Albany who only work, watch TV, sleep and repeat. None of those 37,000 disengaged people are either working towards preservation or working against the bridges project. If your goal is organizing support against the bridges project, then educating the engaged people will help you get there faster than insulting them. If your goal is something else, then I'll shut up.
If your goal is something else...
This is generally correct, though it probably hinges on how you define "engaged".
Dan, yes, the homeland security risk excuse is pretty flimsy. I doubt many bombers are waiting for pedestrian access so they can blow it up. "Can't go up there with my bomb now, there's a No Trespassing sign."
What's more, anyone who wishes might park a truck filled with explosives by the approach on either side and do as much damage.
The railroad is an ass.
Perhaps there is a way for local use - here's an article from the Michigan Bar Association Journal concerning ‘‘rails to trails’’ - I have no idea how Indiana's laws differ.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article259.pdf
The Legal Milestones of a Typical Railroad Right-of-Way
1. First, the railroad right-of-way is acquired from landowners, by donation, voluntary grant through negotiation, or by condemnation. The acquired vary from fee ownership to mere easements, and include various of interests in between, such as a fee subject to a reversion if the railroad use is abandoned.
2. As with the type of interest acquired, non use of a railroad corridor take several forms, but usually only legal abandonment will trigger an easement, or the enforcement of a reverter clause. That will involve matters, such as intent.
3. If a railroad chooses to cease operations, certain regulatory issues play. Federal and/or state railroad agencies normally must give permission to a
railroad to cease operations, because railroads are quasi-public in nature, serve a public purpose. Cessation of their operation can have a negative
the businesses and travelers that have relied on that mode of transportation.
4. Further, railroads have the statutory ability to ‘‘rail bank’’ corridors no longer used, so that legal abandonment will not occur. These legislative
are designed not only to preserve the corridor for future rail use, but use of the rights-of-way as trails (‘‘rails to trails’’), primarily for recreational purposes.
Option rights are involved. See MCL 474.58; 16
USC 1247(d); see also MCL 324.72101, et seq.
5. If a railroad corridor is abandoned and
not ‘‘rail banked,’’ abutting landowners have a
claim to the corridor if the interest of the railroad
was one of an easement, or a conditional
fee with a right of reverter. On the other hand,
if the railroad holds fee title, it is usually free to
do what it chooses with the corridor, provided
applicable laws (such as the Land Division Act
and local zoning) are complied with (but see
Bingham Township v RLTD, below).
Indiana has a statutory mechanism for communities to obtain right-of-ways along abandoned rail lines. However, the railroads have no intention to abandon K&I. As someone who lives along the flood wall, I can attest that it's a very active line and, from what I hear, will remain so indefinitely. I've not researched the issue, but I strongly suspect local governments could use eminent domain to obtain an easement across the K&I while keeping overall ownership of the bridge with the rail company. The tort liability issue could be worked out with an indemnity agreement between the respective governments and the rail company.
Somewhere in all this there's a lesson about letting private interests control major infrastructure. It's one we've obviously ignored in Indiana given recent dealings, but it's there nonetheless.
When Wall Street and a bevy of foreign investors hold the deed to other river crossings, maybe we'll learn.
Indiana's "rails to trails" statute may be found at:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2004/title32/ar23/ch11.html
You'll notice certain time limitations during which action must be taken before the abandoned railroad easement reverts to the property owner.
Every time I eat at Vic's, I notice the abandoned rail easement across the street. It runs from one of the Silver Creek bridges, across Silver Street, along Market, towards Vincennes. I always thought this would make an excellent pathway to get future Greenway traffic into the neighborhoods. The tracts are long gone. Does anyone know when the railroad last used this section of track?
If I remember my history lesson correctly, Mr. Culbertson and other private investors paid to build the K&I. It likely wouldn't be there if it weren't for private interests.
If I remember my history correctly, the vast majority of America's infrastructure was (and continues to be) created through private investment.
The electric grid, natural gas grid, the telecommunications grid, satellite network - all primarily built for shareholder profit through corporate effort.
The Second Street (George Rogers Clark Memorial) bridge in Louisville was built by a Pennsylvania corporation.
The Golden Gate bridge was unaffordable even with the State of California and San Francisco's financial backing. A corporation (Italian-Bank of America) paid for the entire $ 35 million construction of the bridge.
That doesn't change the current outcome, i.e., we should know better now.
The bridges finance group is working with KPMG now, who's well known for structuring deals that give control of infrastructure improvements to foreign investors for more than fifty years at a time, and that's in deals that cost far less than ORBP. Goldman Sachs reps, too, have been regular attendees at bridge finance meetings.
None of that would be necessary, of course, if the scale of ORBP was sensible to begin with and the East End bridge hadn't been obstructed by narrow, monied interests with way more political clout than is justifiable.
You think they're going to be any easier to deal with when the public politely asks? And all those KPMG deals used public money also but gave control of the completed projects to private investors.
Given 20 year construction projections and 50 year private control deals, maybe our grandchildren can rethink the lie-induced legacy we will have left them if we stay on the current path.
If I remember my history correctly, the vast majority of America's infrastructure was (and continues to be) created through private investment.
Hmmmmm...
-The 1949 Housing Act granted cities eminent domain powers to acquire large areas for private use. Claim: For every $1 government, $4 private. Reality: $1 government, $1 private.
-The 1956 Highway Act appropriated $25 billion from the deep well of the Highway Trust Fund with a steady stream of more coming over the years to build the interstate highway system, without a significant increase in the gasoline tax. The federal share of construction costs would be 90%.
Lewis Mumford in 1956:
"When the American people, through their Congress, voted a little while ago...for a twenty-six billion dollar highway program, the most charitable thing to assume about this action is that they hadn't the faintest notion of what they were doing. Within the next fifteen years they will doubtless find out; by that time it will be too late to correct all the damage to our cities and our countryside, not least to the efficient organization of industry and transportation, that this ill conceived and preposterously unbalanced program will have wrought."
It's a great system, Josh.
The public collectively pays for all the infrastructure that makes private transportation related profit possible and then, since that huge, ongoing expenditure doesn't actually result in moving anyone around, we immediately follow that up by paying individually for all the equipment and fuel necessary (which we also publicly subsidize before buying it back) to make use of what we already paid for.
The more we do it that way, the more dependent we become on it as other alternatives fall by the wayside because all our money is tied up in the "market" subsidizing shareholder profit and, you know, those guys with bombs and stuff who hate us because we're "free".
But not to worry, because we'll subsidize dealing with them, too, while they utilize the training we subsidized to fire the weapons we subsidized at our troops.
Of course, it makes it all much easier to swallow when we're lied to repeatedly by the people who are charged with looking out for the public interest to keep it all afloat.
Meanwhile, it's still pretty damn difficult to get across the river without a car unless you are, in fact, afloat.
If people complain, all you have to do is combine "free" and "market" in your explanation because that justifies everything.
And God forbid you get sick while trying to deal with all that, because we don't believe in public subsidy.
You're muddying the water with "facts" - pointing to the freeway system as somehow greater than private investment in America's infrastructure isn't on point. The communications industry, energy industry, food industry - all privately built and owned for private profit.
President Eisenhower saw the Autobahn as a great military asset to the German wehrmacht in WWII and promoted it as a project with military importance.
One example is this - the current, massive cell phone system we enjoy was created for profit - not as a federal project. The FCC only regulates the use of frequencies and bandwidth. Why is AT&T coverage in New Albany spotty? Because AT&T doesn't value their customer base here as much as Chicago.
As to freeways - when the plans to build I-65 were shown to Mayor Farnsley, he said "you've cut the heart out of town (Louisville)."
The notion that the US Government built all of the freeways - not true. California (felt by many to truly define the freeway lifestyle) was drawn up by the California Department of Public Works in the 1940s - not the US government. In fact, the state built their first freeway in 1940, from plans drawn in the 1930s - not a federal project.
The communications industry, energy industry, food industry - all privately built and owned for private profit.
And all benefit from massive public subsidy and, in some cases, legalized monopolies. The profit might be private but the ongoing investment is public.
The notion that the US Government built all of the freeways - not true. California (felt by many to truly define the freeway lifestyle) was drawn up by the California Department of Public Works in the 1940s - not the US government. In fact, the state built their first freeway in 1940, from plans drawn in the 1930s - not a federal project.
Wait a minute? I thought Eisenhower was the impetus behind the interstate highway system? By your account, these plans were drawn up in the 1930s & 1940s. Where was Eisenhower? And if the interstates were for military purposes, why did they cut through the middle of cities? German highways do not go through cities. And no one said the Feds were responsible for the planning. What I said was that The 1956 Highway Act appropriated $25 billion, for 12 years, to build the interstate highway system, without a significant increase in the gasoline tax. The federal share of total construction costs would be 90%.
Jeff, why should AT&T pay for research and development? That is what the Pentagon is for. Nobody believes that its purpose has much to do with defense (ok, some people might). Its a simple way to subsidize the development of the next generation of high technology. If anything marketable comes out it, send it to the corporations, let the taxpayers foot the bill and sell it back to them. Which is why every economist has known for 25 years that anything resembling free-market capitalism is a total disaster. Sure, its fine for 3rd world countries, b/c we love for them to be inefficient, but a successful economy must have massive government intervention to protect it from the evil forces of too much competition.
Lets look at the sectors of US economy that are competitive internationally:
1) agriculture--massive public subsidy.
2) The high-tech industry - paid for by the Pentagon.
3) The pharmaceutical industry - heavily subsidized through public science funding.
And yet...
If people complain, all you have to do is combine "free" and "market" in your explanation because that justifies everything.
President Eisenhower saw the Autobahn as a great military asset to the German wehrmacht in WWII and promoted it as a project with military importance.
The only part of this history I recall studying is that the military asset justification for the interstate system was political cover for the the project and not the primary reason for it. Don't ask for a citation though, been too long ago.
Post a Comment