Accordingly, no road improvement project such as the one outlined below should be considered for implementation without a commensurate and safe bicyling advocacy component. After all, McDonald Lane is ideally situated to link Community Park with access to the Greenway via a future bike lane on Slate Run Road. Speaking of transportation on two wheels, Matt Nash's column today provides encouragement to bike to work.
Improvements planned for McDonald Lane; Public hearing to be held June 8 at Our Lady, by Chris Morris (Tribune)
New Albany city officials are looking for public input for the proposed improvements to McDonald Lane from Grant Line Road to Charlestown Road.
New Albany Mayor Doug England said public input is vital to making sure the improvements “are the best fit for our community.”
14 comments:
If that comes to fruition, I will defiantely get me a new bike, and ride to work in jeff when the weather permits it (and duty schedule).
JC Stites led the discussion about an alternative plan, called “8664,” which includes building the east end bridge and replacing the elevated section of I-64 in downtown Louisville with a boulevard.
I don't see how replacing the elevated section of 64 with a ground based boulevard is better for cyclist, pedestrians, and overall access to Louisville's riverfront.
Currently the elevated interstate provides this.
I do agree that a ground boulevard "may" look better but one of Jeff's recent post compared Lake Shore Drive in Chicago with 8664's plan. If this comparison is what 8664 wants for downtown Louisville I would prefer to keep the elevated interstate.
I understand the idea behind the boulevard is to redirect traffic around the Watterson but I haven't seen any evidence to support that the boulevard wouldn't become as congested as Lake Shore Drive.
I second the call for bike lanes on McDonald Ave.
I don't remember making or pointing to a comparison between 8664 and Lake Shore Drive, Jameson, but my memory isn't what it used to be. I think maybe Dan said something about LSD based on a recent Chicago trip but I'm really not sure. If you can point it out, I can comment on it but I personally don't think it's representative of 8664.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that you, Jeff, posted a comment making a comparison but in one of your recent postings a youtube link talking about 8664. It used LSD in the video as a comparison.
I have never used LSD and luckily there is no YouTube video of me not useing it.
"If this comparison is what 8664 wants for downtown Louisville I would prefer to keep the elevated interstate."
I wish you'd have come to the meeting the other night to add to the conversation. I was told at the farmers market on Saturday that a few people refused to come because they felt it would be a 'pep rally' for 8664...that's not what it was at all. JC was ready to discuss opposing points of view, but none showed up.
Jeff,
I was unable to attend Thursday. Was there any discussion concerning whether 8664 believes they can implement their plan within the ORBP Record of Decision?
Josh,
There was some talk about the ROD. J.C. framed it, I think correctly, as a matter of political will and willingness to negotiate rather than absolutes.
As is well known, Bridges advocates have continually claimed that any changes to ORBP would automatically result in completely starting over, which amended Records of Decision from around the country prove fallacious. When they want to change something, it's no problem. When someone else does, the story changes. Like so many quagmires, it's a matter of who as much as how.
Right now, the focus is primarily on splitting the project into phases (like so recently happened in St. Louis) so that the East End bridge can be built first at a reasonable cost and hopefully without leaving us beholden to tolls, foreign investors or both, allowing us to evaluate how our regional system was supposed to work from the very beginning but never has. Even though the Courier Journal is working hard to convince the public otherwise and the Kentucky legislature has voted in the past couple of years to give funding priority to the downtown bridge, even the current ORBP plan calls for the East End Bridge to be completed first before downtown construction begins.
As Steve Wiser has reminded, this all started with a plan to build the single, eastern span at a then estimated cost of approximately $200K. Years of obstructionist politics later, we've got nothing to show for it except regional leadership still siding with the obstructionists.
How can the public be assured that if the East End Bridge is built first, 8664 will not abandon the entire process? After all, Tyler Allen own 32 acres of land at the intersection of US 42 and the Gene Snyder (where 265 terminates)
One can only hope that this would not preventing 8664 from calling for scrapping the entire ORBP ROD and starting anew toward a regional transportation plan.
For more info:
http://www.cartky.org/node/43
The whole beef with Tyler and the land was off key. As is pointed out in the comments section of the page linked, Tyler owns 18 percent via a land purchase made by his father in the 80s. I think it was the only time the C-J ever defended Tyler, whom they've made a tremendous effort attack.
No one denies that nor is Tyler the president of the group as Jackie claimed.
That someone would volunteer so many years and so much of their own money in the interest of such a minority stake is far fetched at best.
What's more remarkable is that though both J.C. and Tyler come from that fabled East End background (J.C.'s dad wrote the articles of incorporation for River Fields), they've separated themselves from it and stood up to be counted when it would have been much easier to quietly ride the proverbial gravy train.
The strategy vv. project separation potentially leading to nothing changing downtown was brought up by an audience member as well, i.e., whether it was better to prioritize the East End Bridge or let the whole project fail (as many - including our governor at one time - believe was the intent of the whole two bridges, one project approach to begin with). In other words, if you make it far too large and cumbersome to fund, nothing (most notably an East End bridge) will ever happen.
However, as J.C. pointed out, getting the East End bridge done means that the source of decades of obstructionism is gone. River Fields and their associates would no longer have a reason to tout even more concrete monstrosity downtown as their efforts to do so were fueled completely by the desire to avoid an East End bridge. That avoidance was the reason the downtown bridge was introduced into the mix- it was offered as an alternative to the eastern bridge, not in addition to it.
The same type of dynamic is true of the Indiana side where many officials have supported ORBP (and fought any alternatives) largely because they've been convinced that ORBP was the only way to get an East End bridge. It's been pretty entertaining listening to them trying to remember to say bridges, plural, when that's clearly not what so many of them mean.
With those two obstacles removed, the conversation becomes much more open and other possibilities, well, more possible.
As you've pointed out, 8664 is not the end-all regional transportation solution nor has 8664 ever claimed it was. It's a step toward reorienting the region around the river and creating the type of growth and density that better supports public transportation, cycling, and the like.
The land ownership issue has never been a problem, as far as I'm concerned. The unwillingness to disclose it, however, does provide some cause for mistrust, as Jackie pointed out.
The East End Bridge should have been built 15 years ago. The more years that pass, the less it makes sense for any city to invest in large scale infrastructure for automobiles. Especially with the national shift to freight and passenger rail that is occurring with ever-increasing speed. The biggest advantage of the East End Bridge was to allow semi-trucks to bypass downtown. Soon, the trucking industry will be an afterthought. This is predicated on what transportation officials have known for decades, that automobiles and airplanes are the least efficient way to move people and goods around. The East End Bridge made sense in 1995. The more oil I see pumping into the Gulf, the more horrific the entire oil-dependency drama becomes, the more I'm convinced that the entire ORBP needs to be scrapped and a new planning process take its place. One that is democratic, based on real alternatives, and with a multitude of interests at the table (8664 included, of course).
I generally agree, but still think the loop needs to be completed. What may make the most sense is some space on a new East End bridge for cars, some for rail, and some for pedestrians and cyclists.
As was pointed out a long, long time ago, the billions saved from ORBoP could fund any number of non-interstate initiatives, including TARC's proposed T2 three or four times over.
That may even be true of the money paid to consultants, thus far.
The old ammunition plant near Charlestown would be a great spot for a high-speed rail hub.
The East end bridge has federally mandated Bike/pedestrian lanes in the plans.
Post a Comment