Justin Suer fluffs the usual "economic development" suspects as 1Si sniggers in delight.

Here's a fun activity: See if you can find a single reference to indie business, or new/local economies in this piece.

Then again, as celebrations of "regionalism" go, the author's hickeys on the asses of the Bridges Junta membership are visible beneath their starched suits.

Justin Suer on Southern Indiana: ‘Is Louisville our partner, or our adversary? Yes’, by Justin Suer (Insider Louisville)

Introduction

An ecosystem is a “system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms within their environment.[1]“

When neglected or ignored, natural ecosystems become unhealthy. Consequently, growth and development is stunted.

Economic systems are no different. The work of environmental scientists is to help cultivate healthy biological ecosystems. The work of economic developers is to help nurture economic ecosystems. Healthy economic ecosystems produce jobs, tax revenue, and consumer spending.

How healthy is Southern Indiana’s economic ecosystem? What dynamic puzzle pieces are linking up to change our economic ecosystem for the better or worse?

Are complete streets an effective defense against negative Bridges impacts in New Albany? The feds seem to think so.

In urging New Albany's Common Council to join Jeffersonville and Clarksville in passing a no tolls, East End Bridge focused resolution, the New Albanian yesterday alluded to the long-term, negative impacts a toll financed Bridges Project would bring to the city, saying "... it is imperative for New Albany to take back the city's streets now, with a plan for two-way traffic, traffic calming and 'complete streets', before our avenues become a de facto grid of on-ramps for pass-through traffic." The City's best defense against the unwanted, toll-based behemoth beyond project related activism is a proactive approach to improving the streets over which we have more direct control.

His comment is mirrored by the Federal Highway Administration as part of the Bridges Project's Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement. The FHWA not only suggests an increase in mass transit to offset the public burden of the Bridges, but refers to New Albany two-way street reclamation and other traffic calming measures as a means to mitigate negative impacts as well. The relevant bit is shared below, emphasis mine:

The City of New Albany developed the New Albany Inner-City Grid Transportation Study (NAIGTS) in 2007 to identify solutions to make transportation in downtown New Albany safer and more pedestrian friendly. Because of its location and proximity to I-64, New Albany experiences a notable amount of “cut through” traffic. New Albany’s streets, particularly Spring Street and Elm Street provide connections to I-64 for motorists in Harrison County, Clarksville, and Jeffersonville. This study sought strategies to manage traffic in the downtown area to improve efficiency, safety, pedestrian use, and the quality of life of city residents.  The goal of the Study was to examine traffic calming solutions that would create a more pedestrian friendly downtown area. Speed was the primary concern in regards to safety issues for those living and working in the downtown area, as opposed to traffic congestion. The majority of respondents indicated that the conversion of the one-way street system to a two-way system would be a desired to improve traffic movements and reduce travel speeds.  

The traffic calming solutions examined include changes in street alignment and installation of other physical barriers to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut through volumes in the interest of safety, livability and other public purposes.  Traffic calming techniques include the use of speed tables, raised intersections, traffic circles, and travel lane width reductions to slow travel speeds, and increase the safety of pedestrians while providing an increased quality of downtown livability. The study noted that increased pedestrian foot traffic as a result of increased safety could have effects resulting in increased economic viability of the downtown area and overall community cohesion.     

  

In relation to the LSIORB Project, these types of traffic calming measures could reduce the desirability of using these roadways to avoid the tolled I-65 bridges. The implementation of speed reduction techniques on these urban roadways may increase travel times to the extent that traffic would not seek these roadways as alternatives to the Modified Selected Alternative.  

REWIND: Dear Ed.

As relevant today as it was when originally written by the New Albanian in December, 2010, with one addendum: Clere recently commented on tolls to Marcus Green of the Courier-Journal, suggesting any concerns about them should be addressed only after toll financed project construction has begun.

Clere said once an exact toll plan is known — including rates — officials will be in a position to study how to ease the impact on businesses, students, low-income residents and others.

“That’s a discussion that we need to be having after the project is already assured and construction is under way,” he said.

 ---

December 21, 2010

 For the record: The following e-mail was sent to State Representative Ed Clere last Wednesday, just after the Tolling Authority's "public input" debacle, and a day before the Authority ratified its foregone conclusion. During the "input" session, I enjoyed an unexpected chat with Mrs. Clere, and based on this exchange of views, it occurred to me to "reach out" (a faddish usage I detest, but which seems appropriate here) and see if communications might be resumed. I've heard nothing so far, but maybe this time will be different.

Note also that this tolling fight has only just begun, in spite of the Tolling Authority's efforts to convince the public that its unelected dictates are carved in stone. Oatmeal's more like it. The letter is followed by comments to the Tolling Authority submitted by myself and BG.
---

Good morning, Ed.

I needn’t remind you that we’ve not spoken lately. This has been a phenomenon I neither instigated nor sought, but history is precisely that. It is what has passed. We cannot change history, only rewrite it, although accuracy certainly is paramount when it comes to moving forward.

Let’s consider the topic of tolling existing Ohio River bridges as a means of financing the Ohio River Bridges Project.

I had the pleasure of speaking with your wife at Monday’s farcical public “input” meeting, and she assured me that both of you are opposed to tolling as a means of implementing the $4 billion transportation “solution.”

However, she added that because you were so busy with the campaign, and lacking time to familiarize yourself with tolling’s details, you’ve chosen not to speak publicly on the issue. I sincerely believe that (a) you have clearly spoken (see below) on the issue, and (b) apart from your answer to the Tribune’s question, your absence as we’ve debated the matter has decidedly not been in the best interests of your constituents. I told Amy this, and trust that she relayed word to you.

Personally, I believe that your linkage of opposition to bridge tolls with partisan political concerns was unbecoming considering your level of skill. It was both unnecessary and insulting to those many people, like me, who typically shun the vulgarities of both major parties. I believe that genuinely valuable time has been wasted, but I also believe that enough time remains, precisely because the future is not the past, and it’s never too late to start all over again.

Let’s examine your one public statement on tolling, in the form of comments to the Tribune/Evening News just prior to the election, in which you indicated with a fair amount of clarity that you in fact held (as yet hold?) a position, and that this position addresses tolling in only two contexts: As partisan politics, and as job creation. It is my contention that both these contexts ignore reality here, now, on the ground, and in the trenches, as has been made evident every day since the election was held by exponentially growing opposition to tolling.

1) DO YOU SUPPORT TOLLS AS A MEANS TO PAY FOR TWO NEW BRIDGES ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER?

“Special interests are trying to use tolls as a scare tactic to kill the bridges project altogether. Politicians have failed for decades to build the bridges, and I won’t use the issue of tolls to score cheap political points. There’s too much at stake, including tens of thousands of jobs. This isn’t a question of being for or against tolls. It’s a question of being for or against jobs, and I’m for jobs. I don’t want to pay tolls. I also don’t want to leave the bridges project as a problem for my children to solve. It’s our responsibility to find a way to move forward. I’m eager to see the financing plan the bi-state Bridges Authority will propose later this year. If the plan involves tolls, I will have the same questions and concerns as anyone else who lives here and uses the bridges. I won’t, however, take a position against something that hasn’t been proposed in a cynical attempt to win an election.”

Ed, there are so many questions to ask about this statement.

Am I to deduce from this statement that my opposition to tolling indicates that I am being manipulated by special interests?

If so, can you identify them?

Am I to deduce that the Democratic Party has compelled me to speak out?

Do you think for a moment that the 10,000 local residents and dozens of Hoosier businesses signing petitions against tolling did so because they were trying to influence the outcome of an election that already was decided?

When it comes to jobs, why must the concerns of these dozens of small Hoosier businesses – concerns derived from daily experience in the marketplace over long periods of time -- that tolling will negatively impact their operations be almost entirely ignored in favor of accepting exaggerated claims of job creation that have been discredited time and again?

Doesn’t putting a small business out of business actually cost us jobs?

Who decides which of these jobs is most important?

A plan for tolling “hasn’t been proposed”?

As noted in my comments below, for as long as I’ve been attending meetings and observing the activity of the Bridges Authority, there has constantly occurred an activity for which the English language possesses no single word as accurate as this one: Lying. Officials stand directly in front of placards explaining the absolute necessity of tolling to achieve the project, look at you, and say there is no firm plan to toll.

Really?

Can’t you see that in your ongoing silence, you lend tacit support to this unabated nefariousness?

Ed, during the period of your silence, for whatever its reason, an anti-tolls movement has emerged that reaches across various and sundry aisles in a surreal way seldom witnessed hereabouts. I have sat in a room and found myself agreeing with tea partiers. Communists and fascists are sharing beers. More than a few local Republicans have confided to me their agreement that tolling is madness, even if they cannot bring themselves to say so publicly for fear of being blackballed by the same party (as a hint, an elephant as symbol) that preaches fiscal responsibility and non-taxation on perhaps every other topic except this one.

How can this be, and how can special interests manipulate folks on so many different sides?

As busy as you have been, and for whatever other reasons you have chosen to maintain distance, you cannot fail to have noticed the phenomenon. And yet, all that you have yet been able to say publicly about an issue of huge significance and cost that will impact your community for a half-century to come is the frankly dismissive and snarky passage quoted above, which surely – surely -- is not indicative of your caliber of intellect, and the your capability of discourse.

Ed, in the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t matter whether you and I like each other, or if we get along. We needn’t consult an oracle to deduce that given my political proclivities, I don’t have a proverbial pot to piss in, and remain isolated in New Albany's noted progressive ghetto, although better to live in obscurity than be forced to attend another Nurnberg rally like the one I endured on Monday.

But ... in what amounts to lofty disdain for those in opposition to tolling, those mere “populists” who actually oppose tolling for the very same reasons that undergird your core political orientation, you are doing a tremendous, indefensible disservice to the community which only recently returned you to office. They are looking to you, and you are not there.

By all rights, this is your fight.

Where are you?

--Roger

---

My “official” comment, as submitted to the Bridges Authority:

Personally speaking, I resent the ongoing, self-perpetuating lies about tolling, which have been representative of Orwell at his finest. When the placard on the wall says, in effect, "there must be tolls to support the project as constituted," and otherwise sane Authority members look one in the eye and say, "no decision has been made about tolling," it is an abomination that speaks to the existence of cognitive dissonance on a deep and perhaps unredeemable level.

Tolling will be injurious to Southern Indiana small retail businesses, and yet not a person connected to the Authority has considered studying what this effect might be until AFTER tolls are established. Don't you think that's important to know?

Even beyond tolling, the truth of the matter is that the ORBP is a 1950's solution to 2050's problems, entirely ignoring every other available option beyond automotive transport to "solve" mobility needs for the next 50 years. How is any of this a judicious expenditure of $4 billion?

A friend of mine says it best: "Build what we need. Build what we can afford. Build the East End Bridge. And see what happens."

Raising a barrier to commerce in the form of tolls on existing Interstate and other infrastructure is madness. Do any of you sleep at night?---

As usual, Jeff Gillenwater says it better:

The projections used to justify this project in its current form are not accurate. Population, job, and traffic growth rates are lower than predicted. There are regional mobility solutions that are cheaper, safer, more conducive to economic investment, that will create more jobs, and are environmentally much more responsible. That none of them have been seriously considered in direct comparison to ORBP is a disservice to the region and the nation, creating a false "all-this-or-nothing" dichotomy and necessitating rancorous dissent where reasonable discourse would have better served had initial, well researched public input efforts been responded to in kind. What you are asking is that the regional community spend the next several decades paying more than necessary for a project it neither wants (except the East End Bridge) nor best serves its long-term transportation needs. The conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, that led to this untenable juncture should be disclosed and reviewed right alongside readily available alternatives to this project. According to your own estimates, all that can be accomplished while the East End Bridge is being constructed utilizing traditional state and federal funding with no new sources of revenue - tolls, private investment or others - needed. 

Ohio River Bridges: A reporter gets to work and the numbers start to unravel.

After years of baseless editorializing to the contrary, the Courier-Journal takes what for the Gannett paper is a major journalistic step forward: asserting that the economic impact of the Ohio River Bridges Project is "unclear". In other words, reporter Marcus Green was finally allowed to publish some answers to the sorts of questions he's been asking for a long time.

In considering the two most recent official project documents, Green says:

Taken together, the two studies paint a picture of a project that will create work during construction but offer no consensus on any permanent employment spurred by the two-bridge plan nor the potential impact of tolls.

As NAC previously reported, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement - required because of state changes to the project of the sort the public was told were impossible - predicted slightly fewer permanent jobs in the region as a result of building the entire project as compared to not building it at all. Now, with the release of the finalized statement, even the construction jobs are being questioned along with other claims so eagerly inflated by project proponents:

The environmental study, for instance, shows that during the main construction period from 2012 to 2018, the project will create about 3,225 jobs each year. That compares with 4,118 projected in the Indiana study released in April.

Those estimates are a far cry from the nearly 57,000 jobs, each lasting a year, that were predicted in a 2009 study commissioned by The Bridges Coalition, a group of business, labor and local government interests advocating the project.

Finally, someone in the mainstream, commercial media called them out.

Worth noting, too, is that there is almost no local representation amongst the finalists for the construction contracts from either state, a situation that could reduce the ability of local workers to avail themselves of wages even further as companies bring in their outside crews; a few thousand temporary jobs perhaps, give or take a thousand or so, but not necessarily new ones and not necessarily of direct benefit to the local residents who'll be footing hundreds of millions in tolls over decades.

The final version of the impact document, the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) released in late April, shows much the same thing as the draft in terms of permanent jobs, with a shifting of long-term employment within the region as a result of the project but no additional jobs created as compared to a no-build option.

The environmental report, called the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement, says it “did not attempt to predict whether the project would increase the total number of jobs in the region.” It also didn’t specifically address the impact of tolls.

It did, however, estimate that the Louisville area would have 803,844 jobs in 2030 and that, if the project were built, about 12,000 of those jobs would be created in Clark and Floyd counties. If the project weren’t built, they would have located in Jefferson and Oldham counties, the study says.

The SFEIS chart below shows the projected job totals in comparison.  The net difference in terms of projected long-term employment in the five-county project area is zero.

As further explanation of the regional jobs shift, the SFEIS provides a map showing projected areas of increased and decreased employment. Per the included key, red areas show job gains and blue job losses.

According to the article, local economists Eric Schansberg and Paul Coomes generally agree that the eastern portion of the project should help increase employment, while the downtown portion is more questionable. And while it may be somewhat tempting for Hoosiers to view those Indiana job gains as a big positive for the state, location matters both now and long into the future. The SFEIS predicts a clear pattern of job loss along the I-65 corridor from the river to I-265, precisely where billions in previous investments and infrastructure improvements have already been made.

Also of interest is that the smaller and/or less concentrated gains projected for areas not in or very near River Ridge are most often outside of the I-265 loop in predominantly rural areas where little infrastructure to support them currently exists (read as permanent, increased costs) and at least some residents are actively trying to control unwanted growth in order to mitigate the loss of natural habitat and rural lifestyles (read as permanent, increased costs). In terms of maximizing preexisting and soon-to-be investments, efficient use of financial, natural, and cultural resources, and sustainable development, the Bridges Project as currently proposed is a clunker.

Taken in conjunction with the previously reported "disproportionately high and adverse effect" of tolls the Federal Highway Administration predicts for much of the urban core, there are certainly many more socioeconomic questions in need of asking than real answers.

As Green gets to it, the backpedaling and contradictions evident in his article are worth the read in its entirety. Kentucky Governor Beshear said "the environmental report is 'not an economic one.'” Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Attorney Tim Hagerty said "the states chose not to predict overall job growth from the project because 'it was an area that involved some sort of controversy and it wasn’t necessary.'” It was apparently necessary, though, to sell the project to the public as a massive, generations-long, job creating machine for a number of years to get it to this point. The controversy comes from trying to make the stories match.

My favorite quote in the article, however, comes from Indiana District 72 Representative Ed Clere, who thinks the proper time to consider negative project impacts and how they might be alleviated is after we've fully committed billions and are already building it.

Clere said once an exact toll plan is known — including rates — officials will be in a position to study how to ease the impact on businesses, students, low-income residents and others.

“That’s a discussion that we need to be having after the project is already assured and construction is under way,” he said.

That attitude, friends, is not only what we're getting in the way of representation in this mess but why we are in it.

Marohn: "We built places that rocked back when we had to build them to be financially sound."

"Chuck Marohn, the executive director of Strong Towns, explains the difference between a road, which is a connection to two places and a street, which is a network of activity. He stresses the importance of returning roads to towns for community and economic development."

In the process, Marohn does a nice of job of explaining how the government driven dominance of automobile-centric development has led to unsustainable economic inefficiencies and the breakdown of our social fabric.

Anyone advocating on behalf of the Ohio River Bridges Project or just about any other massive, in-town road (rather than street) building project under the guise of economic development, social good, or the free market is simply ignorant - and perhaps purposefully so - of our history, both impetuses and outcomes. They are rallying in favor of debt, the unneeded and unwise prostration of locals to volatile international financial markets, and a model that extracts rather than enhances the value of place for a majority of regional citizens.

Interstates and highways were meant to connect places over long distances, something they're sometimes actually good at. When we make them the centerpiece of local development, however, we've missed the point entirely, resigning ourselves to the sort of disrespect for and loss of previous investment and work from which it's difficult to recover.

Ohio River Bridges: It just keeps getting better. (updated)

From Chapter 5, page 43 of the newly released ORBP Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement:

"Based on the vehicle user cost data, presented above, FHWA has concluded that the Modified Selected Alternative is likely to cause disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations. Although the impacts would not be “predominantly borne” by environmental justice populations, the impact would be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude for these populations."

No kidding.

It goes on to state that enhanced bus service and other tolling mitigation techniques must be addressed prior to the implementation of tolls because overall travel time and vehicular costs are lower with transit. Again, no kidding. Those lower costs are precisely where we should have started.

And for those who may be naively thinking "but that's not me", both Downtown New Albany and Downtown Jeffersonville are included in the low-income and/or minority areas predicted to experience those disproportionately high and adverse affects.

If you care about those places, that is you.

The map below documents the areas deemed minority, low income, or both and primary environmental justice block groups.

I guess we'll see which newsies and politicos address that as well.

Ohio River Bridges: Calculating jobs with calculating people.

So the bridges honchos released their new economic impact study and most of it's not surprising: a) a majority of the "positive" economic impact is delivered via the East End Bridge that we can we build without tolls and b) despite substantial, successful, and ongoing revitalization investments both public and private, the powers that be are perfectly willing to sacrifice large portions of the urban core in favor of continued sprawl in Clark and Floyd Counties. These are things we already knew. They jive completely with what critics of the project as currently conceived have said for a decade or more.

The big news, though, and the piece on which said honchos will undoubtedly hang their chutzpah is the calculation of employment benefits. To wit, the study says that building the entire project will lead to a 2.6% increase in employment in the five-county Louisville Metropolitan Planning Area (LMPA) if calculated through 2042. The LMPA consists of Clark, Floyd, Jefferson, Bullitt, and Oldham Counties.

To quote directly from the study, page 3:

Overall, from 2012 to 2042, the Project is expected to generate an average of 17,796 jobs per year and a cumulative total of $27.3 billion in personal income and $78.0 billion in economic output (in constant 2012 dollars) in the regional economy.

To be clear, that's not 18,000 additional, new jobs each year as in 18,000 + 18,000 + 18,000... but an aggregate total of sorts, meaning that the project is projected to create approximately 18,000 jobs at full force which will then be generally maintained throughout the study period. Both direct and indirect jobs are included in the total. Bridge building jobs (which may or may not be filled by locals) count. If someone opens a manufacturing facility near the new bridge, those jobs count. If someone builds a new residential unit to be close to the new manufacturing facility, those jobs count. And, if someone hires a server at a restaurant to help sell food to the new workers and residents, that server is in the mix, too. All told and as previously noted, the creation and annual maintenance of a study period average of roughly 18,0000 jobs equates to a 2.6% increase in overall LMPA employment.

While some of those calculations are themselves questionable, let's assume for a moment that they're true. As the Economic Development Research Group that conducted the study says, it's designed to be "consistent with the travel demand model on which it is based", namely the locally produced one used to justify the Ohio River Bridges Project to the federal government.

There's just one wee issue:

That same locally developed travel demand model assumed that employment in those five counties would, by 2030, increase much more than what's predicted in this economic impact study. And that's if we don't build any part of the Bridges Project at all.

Yes, you read that correctly. Per the socioeconomic data input into the modelling software to project eventual traffic levels and thus demand for bridges, jobs in the metro planning area were predicted to increase not by 2.6% as a result of multiple bridges but by 42% under a No-Action, non-building alternative.

Just as they did for the original 2003 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, now referred to as FEIS since it was considered final at the time) that led to the oft discussed federal Record of Decision, locals had to produce updated regional traffic projections to satisfy federal guidelines for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) when the project was recently changed.

How do they do that? Our regional transportation authority, the Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA) and Louisville Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) use computer software to create a traffic demand model using socioeconomic forecast data. Not surprisingly, the results of such modelling efforts are highly dependent on the socioeconomic forecasts input into the system.

As explained in the Purpose and Need section of the SDEIS, Section 2, pp. 5-6:

KIPDA, which provides staff support for the Louisville MPO, prepares socioeconomic (population and employment) forecasts for the LMPA, which are incorporated into Louisville MPO’s travel demand computer model to estimate current and future travel demand within the area. Those regional travel demand conditions help to predict future travel conditions and the needs of the transportation systems; and, ultimately, to evaluate potential solutions to the identified transportation needs.

Since the 2003 FEIS was issued, a new travel demand model was developed for use in forecasting future travel conditions in the region to aid in determining the project’s purpose and need. The model was based on extensive data collection efforts, including traffic counts at nearly 1,400 locations, turning movement counts at 50 intersections, current transit data, an origin-destination survey, and the latest socioeconomic data provided by the Louisville MPO.

In order to justify building the project in its entirety, KIPDA (and the politicians who control KIPDA) needed those traffic demand numbers to be as high as possible. Setting aside the concept of induced demand for a moment, more traffic demand equates to more need for lanes and thus higher justification for construction. The more people and jobs you have, the more traffic, right?

But here's the kicker, again from the SDEIS, Section 2, pp. 5-6:

The initial socioeconomic input for the travel demand model was based on Louisville MPO’s latest socioeconomic forecast for the region in year 2030, which assumes two new bridges across the Ohio River in the LMPA. However, for the SDEIS No-Action Alternative, an alternate distribution of the socioeconomic forecast was developed for the project model that did not include the two new Ohio River bridges or the reconstruction of the Kennedy Interchange. (Chapter 5 provides a more detailed discussion of the methodology used to develop the two different distributions of population and employment.)

The 2030 regional forecasts indicate the changes that are expected to take place on an LMPA-widebasis. Population is now predicted to increase by 15% between 2007 and 2030, while employment is predicted to increase by 42% in the same period.*

* The population and employment distributions used to forecast the No-Action Alternative travel conditions are consistent with the No-Action Alternative transportation network, that is, no new bridges over the Ohio River and no modifications to the Kennedy Interchange.

Thus, we have what appears to be significant contradiction. KIPDA says planning area employment will increase by 42% by 2030 if we build nothing associated with ORBP. The Indiana-hired Economic Development Research Group says employment will increase by 2.6% if we build the whole thing quickly and assume completion in 2018.

Confused yet? It gets even better.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement draft excerpt shared above suggests consulting Chapter 5 in its pages to better understand the socioeconomic data. Doing so, however, leads to this:

With text to accompany the graphic (Section 5, pg. 18):

As shown, construction of the LSIORB Project would result in a shift in permanent employment within the LMPA, and a decrease of 78 in total employment over the No-Action Alternative.

Yes, you read that correctly, too. Despite the ongoing, wild-eyed claims of project supporters that ORBP will lead to thousands and/or tens of thousands of jobs, the SDEIS quite literally states that building the whole thing will lead to 78 fewer total jobs than not building it all. At best, a small percentage of total five-county employment will shift from Kentucky to Indiana, mostly in Clark County.

Decades of toll revenues - over $12 million per year directly out-of-pocket as a starting point according to Dr. Paul Coomes, Ph.D. Economics and Dr. Eric Schansberg, Ph.D. Economics - will go largely toward a few years of temporary construction jobs and financier-charged interest or profit. Meanwhile, in terms of lasting economic opportunity, locals will be stuck with little more and perhaps less than what they would've otherwise had without the added expense.

A 19th century plan would be better. We were building mass transit then.

As Neighborhood Planning and Preservation of Kentuckiana said on Facebook:

LUNACY ALERT: For most of the 21st century, Kentucky and Southern Indiana will be paying for 20th century highway system and whatever it costs to rectify this big mistake in the future. Sorry kids.......

Bridges' tolls may last long past 2058, by Chris Otts, Courier-Journal

Tolls of $1 to $10 per crossing will be used for far more than just paying for construction of two new bridges over the Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana officials say.

The millions of dollars in annual revenue the tolls are expected to generate will also pay for maintaining and repairing the new bridges for at least 40 years — and potentially fund the replacement of the Kennedy Bridge around 2050, Kentucky highway officials said.

That means that Louisville-area residents could continue paying tolls to cross East End and downtown bridges long after their construction debt is paid off around 2058.

It also helps explain why planners of the Ohio River Bridges Project have never said when — or if — tolls would ever be removed from the bridges.

We couldn't lose any better if we tried.

Anyone paying attention to local Bridges Project inanity is probably aware that the Bridges Authority has successfully maintained its .000 batting average in regard to the U.S. Department of Transportation's TIGER grant program.

Meanwhile, in more rational parts of our country, other cities are enjoying the investments and paid work such a program makes possible.

TIGER transforming Kansas City's Green Impact Zone, U.S. Department of Transportation

The Green Impact Zone is a 150-block area in urban core of Kansas City that has been devastated over the years by high rates of poverty, unemployment, crime, and high concentrations of vacant and abandoned properties. Local and regional leaders have come together to jump-start the zone's economic recovery by upgrading its infrastructure.

Crews are fixing broken sidewalks, repaving roads, and coordinating traffic signals. In addition, the Green Impact Zone project will provide better access to regional opportunities through expanded transit facilities. Describing the Troost Avenue improvements, which include a new pedestrian bridge separated from vehicle traffic, the Kansas City Star editorial board wrote, "This is a tremendous investment to support redevelopment in Kansas City’s urban core."

When one calculates the ultimate costs of the Bridges Project, it's important to consider such missed opportunities as well. It's especially saddening when one realizes that our lack of such investment makes us less competitive for other programs like HUD's housing initiatives as well, including FHA loans. Below, HUD Secretary Donovan on the spiraling costs of sprawl that the Bridges Project seeks to increase:

Watch Housing + Transportation costs adding up on PBS. See more from Need to Know.

But we can't say the Feds didn't let us know.

The first three rounds of DOT's TIGER grants have funded high-impact transportation projects in all 50 states, in Puerto Rico, and right here in Washington, DC. Across the country, this competitive program is fostering beneficial and innovative solutions that:

*Contribute to long-term economic competitiveness,
*Upgrade the safety and quality of existing transportation infrastructure and facilities,
*Increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
*Improve the quality of life in communities through better transportation choices and connections.

What we're seeing in the Ohio River Bridges Project is a failure of leadership that will regurgitate back onto us for decades to come, both in terms of what we'll get if not significantly changed and in what what we've already lost. That they want us to pay for it with 40-50 years of tolls is nothing more than proof of their long-standing inability to garner support for a project that citizens, planners, and bean counters around the world view as a compounding of previous mistakes rather than a solution.

Doomed to dependence on automobiles and foreign oil. That's some way to live.

If all the pain and agony surrounding the ORBP genuinely purports to address any semblance of what the Louisville area's transportation needs will be in 50 years, then why is mass transit not a part of the ongoing conversation? At the end of the day, the reason why I oppose the ORBP paradigm so strenuously is less about tolls or Kerry Stemler's breathtaking arrogance than the fact of its sheer expense and auto-centric scale effectively precluding civilized public transportation construction for THE REST OF MY LIFE.

Links are to articles in OSIN. Beware of pop-ups.

Bridges forum: It’s still about the money

$2.9B bridges project recommended

ORBP: "We need an affordable solution that does not include tolls."

(submitted)

Tolls are still in the plan - CJ: "Bridge planners assuming higher tolls on East End bridge"

"...The authority expects to decide actual toll rates sometime in 2012 once the construction contract has been awarded.." (Courier-Journal October 26, 2011)

We can't give up. The Bridges Authority is going to build the bridges and tell us later what it will cost. We need to keep calling and writing the FHWA officials--both state and Federal--and tell them we need an affordable solution that does not include tolls. Tolls are still in the plan unless the Federal Highway Administration intervenes.

Please send a message to FHWA representatives below that you are opposed to tolls. Here's a draft message that you can edit to your particular concerns regarding tolls, but please send a message to the Federal Highway Administration representatives list below:

I stand with other members of this community who are opposed to tolls on I-65. Tolls on I-65 will have a negative impact on the local economy. Public comments are 3-1 against tolls on I-65. There are 9 resolutions from all surrounding local councils opposed to tolling I-65. Other resolutions against tolls on I-65 include two from local government associations, Southern Indiana Tourism Bureau, Jeffersonville Main Street Association, statements from Jeffersonville mayor Tom Galligan, and New Albany Mayor Doug England. Over 11,000 people signed petitions opposing tolls on I-65. Those signatures were collected over just 9 weeks.

Bob Tally, (FHWA co-chair)

Indiana Division

robert.tally@dot.gov

P: (317) 226-7476

Fax: (317) 226-7341

Jose Sepulveda, Division Administrator, Kentucky Division Office

Federal Highway Administration

jose.sepulveda@dot.gov

330 West Broadway, Room 264
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

P: (502)223-6720 FAX: (502)223-6735

Ray Lahood - Cheryl J Walker/ Special Assistant

Federal Highway Administration

Office of the Federal Highway Administrator

(202) 366-6378

Cheryl.Walker@dot.gov

About No2BridgeTolls.org

We are a broad-based coalition of businesses, organizations and private individuals who are opposed to tolls on the I-65 Corridor/Kennedy Bridges System. Our targeted focus has been driven by recent announcements by the governors of both states to shift the financing burden for all of the downtown infrastructure needs to the Kennedy Bridge and its I-65 supporting new Downtown Bridge. We have formed under the entity of "Organization for a Better Southern Indiana, Inc." (OBSI.) Our purpose is to educate the public of the true impact of the current proposed bridge toll on both sides of the river. We are a 501-C6 non-profit organization that has been formed for the purpose of disseminating information. We are not against the bridges--just tolls or user fees on the I-65 Corridor/Kennedy Bridges System, which will divide our community, be a regressive tax that our citizens and businesses cannot afford, and will adversely affect the local economy, disproportionately affecting Southern Indiana.

No2BridgeTolls.org reminds us: "Tolls still on the table."

(From No2BridgeTolls.org)

Tolls still on the table

The Ohio River Bridges Authority will be selecting a method of building the bridges in October, (Read CJ article) but tolls are still on the table unless the Federal Highway Administration intervenes. Please send a message to FHWA representatives below that you are opposed to tolls. Here's a draft message that you can edit to your particular concerns regarding tolls, but please send a message to the Federal Highway Administration representatives list below:

I stand with other members of this community who are opposed to tolls on I-65. Tolls on I-65 will have a negative impact on the local economy. Public comments are 3-1 against tolls on I-65. There are 9 resolutions from all surrounding local councils opposed to tolling I-65. Other resolutions against tolls on I-65 include two from local government associations, Southern Indiana Tourism Bureau, Jeffersonville Main Street Association, statements from Jeffersonville mayor Tom Galligan, and New Albany Mayor Doug England. Over 11,000 people signed petitions opposing tolls on I-65. Those signatures were collected over just 9 weeks.

Bob Tally, (FHWA co-chair) Indiana Division

robert.tally@dot.gov

P: (317) 226-7476

Fax: (317) 226-7341

Jose Sepulveda, Division Administrator, Kentucky Division Office

Federal Highway Administration

jose.sepulveda@dot.gov

330 West Broadway, Room 264
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

P: (502)223-6720

Fax: (502)223-6735

Ray Lahood - Cheryl J Walker/ Special Assistant

Federal Highway Administration

Office of the Federal Highway Administrator

(202) 366-6378

Cheryl.Walker@dot.gov

(Illustration is NAC's)

I always knew the Bridges Politburo had no intention of conducting an economic impact study.

As Matt pointed out on Twitter, publishing this story on a holiday weekend doesn't seem to be the optimal way for the C-J to assure readership. Speaking for myself, I keep remembering the promise that the Bridges Politburo would not neglect the economic impact of tolls on Hoosier small business. The Green Mouse reiterates: Posterity simply is not going to be very kind when it comes to gauging the performance of this body.

Study of Ohio River bridges' impact stalled; Work would include gauging tolls' effect, by Marcus Green (Courier-Journal).

Authority officials are at a loss now to say if the final study will consider the potential impact of tolls on the region’s economy.

One bridge? No tolls? No kidding.

The obvious is just as obvious when written down in the permanent record, especially the Bridges Politburo doing exactly what's expected of it when it gets the answers it didn't want to the questions it didn't dare ask out loud.

Comments favor one Ohio River bridge now - Tolls not popular in feedback after project adds possibility, by Marcus Green, Courier-Journal

Build one bridge now. Make it in eastern Jefferson County. And don’t ask us to pay tolls.

That’s the public’s early reaction to the most recent proposed changes to the Ohio River Bridges Project, according to a Courier-Journal analysis of hundreds of public comments obtained under the Kentucky Open Records Act.

Two in the eye for 1Si.

Does the man on the left look familiar? It's One Southern Indiana's former president Michael Dalby, who now holds the same position with the Columbus (OH) Chamber of Commerce. Out from under the regressive 1Si thumb, the photo shows Dalby in Columbus celebrating a Bike to Work day in support of 2 BY 2012, an initiative whose slogan is "Change your commute. Change your life. Change your city."

As explained on the Consider Biking web site:

The goal of 2 BY 2012 is for each citizen of central Ohio to bicycle to work 2 days per month by the Columbus bicentennial in 2012.

2 BY 2012 is both a challenge and a movement. If we can rise to the challenge of changing how we get to work, we can start a movement that will significantly benefit our lives and our community.

And it all begins with you: the individual. Whether you are already a cyclist, or are interested in using cycling to improve your health, choose now and join 2 BY 2012.

We can achieve this goal! And when we do, it will mean that Columbus successfully increased its green transportation by 300% — and Columbus would surpass Portland, Oregon as the greenest transportation city in the U.S.

And as noted on the Two Wheeling blog whence the photo came:

It speaks volumes for our CEOs to get out on a day like today to show their friends, families and colleagues that it's not only ok to bike to work, but that biking is a viable, even preferable, form of urban transportation in the 21st century. We all love our cars, but we don't need to use them for short urban trips of 2-5 miles. The Columbus CEO community knows that biking to work and other forms of active transportation are good for their employees and their companies' bottom lines--studies show that employees who bike and walk to work are healthier, happier, more productive and miss less work. Check out http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/08/20/walk-cycle-obesity.html. And new economy workers, and the companies that wish to employ them, are increasingly attracted to cities with vibrant, active transportation systems--that's why 2 by 2012 is important to the economic development of our region.

Of course, Dalby's path to such an encouraging stance was smoothed by other civic groups in the region like the League of Women Voters and other Columbus Chamber folks, who facilitated and released a transportation study a little less than a year before he took his newfound reins:

Mobility is a growing priority for consumers—and a growing source of frustration.

Ideally, people should have at least five choices as to mode of transportation: feet, bike, transit, taxi, and private vehicle, along with the ability to mix and match them. It was recommended by Ohio’s 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force to “give Ohioans more options for getting where they want to go...by developing a balanced and efficient system that ensures connectivity among all modes of transportation.” The Ohio Department of Transportation website is currently featuring ODOT’ s 2010-2011 Business Plan, which is a follow-up to the task force report.

Steve Tugend of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce told members of the committee that the economic advantages of transit are: 1) It attracts business to the area, 2) It helps retain and grow business, and 3) It builds the capacity for growth by attracting skilled young people to the area. A survey was conducted for the Chamber that found that a good transit system, especially one with fixed guideway, is an important factor in attracting young workers to an area and in keeping them there. (A “fixed guideway” refers to any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights of way or rails, entirely or in part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, cable car, automated guideway transit, that portion of motor bus service operated on exclusive or controlled rights-of-way, and high occupancy vehicle [HOV] lanes.)

It is estimated that every $10 million in capital investment for public transportation yields $30 million in increased business sales, and that every $10 million in operating investment for public transportation yields $32 million in increased business sales. Further, every $1 taxpayers invest in public transportation generates $6 in economic returns.

At any rate, it's refreshing to see Dalby advocating for something sensible for a change. Let's just hope the rest of us don't have to take jobs in other cities to experience the positive results.

Fetter: "Clere should represent the will of the people, business, and local government entities (as to) how tolling will negatively affect them."

Paul Fetter responds to "Dave" on the OSIN thread mentioned yesterday, and we thank him for his valuable input, seeing as no one has done more than Paul during the battle against proposed bridge tolls.

Respectfully, tolling is a serious issue for Southern Indiana. It is easy for someone in Floyd County to say they want tolls, because the Sherman Minton Bridge is no longer going to be tolled. Well Dave, you can thank our group No2bridgetolls.org and Roger, Jeff, and friends for that, because it was through our efforts that tolling for the Sherman Minton was removed.

The tolling issue is still out there and is a serious concern for Clark County residents and businesses. We in Clark County appreciate that Roger and Jeff are still staying involved with the topic, because it is now less relevant for them.

Representative Clere may not feel that this is his problem anymore, but his own New Albany City Council, with 8 other municipal councils, and the Southern Indiana Tourism Bureau passed resolutions opposed to tolling. Over 11,000 people and 200 businesses signed petitions opposing tolling. Both of these things happened in about 2 months last fall. If we had continued looking for signatures on the petitions, there would easily be over 50,000 signatures by now. People are still asking for them. We felt 11,000 signatures in 2 months was a very telling statement and no further action was necessary. Tolling is a very serious concern for Southern Indiana, and I think Representative Clere should represent the will of the people, business, and local government entities that understand how tolling will negatively affect them.

Our two states have $1.9 billion pledged to build a bridges project. What makes the most sense for Southern Indiana is making the rest of the necessary reductions to the Ohio River Bridges Project and build it with the money the states have available. If we are going to spend $1.9 billion, this should be project we can all get behind. This can happen if our politicians like Representative Clere will help by representing this to our state and federal leaders.

No further comment here necessary. I will gladly discuss the Ohio River Bridges Project with anyone interested anytime. You can reach me through our website or Facebook page.

Paul Fetter, Co-founder, www.No2bridgetolls.org

ON THE AVENUES: A multiplicity of toxicity.

ON THE AVENUES: A multiplicity of toxicity.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

It’s been almost exactly one year since the infamous Clere Channel Facebook Massacre, and it appears the statute of insinuations has at long last expired, because on August 21, in a comment posted at One Southern Indiana Newspaper’s web site, a public explanation for the X-ACTO brand stiletto attack finally was offered by State Representative Ed Clere’s wife, Amy Clere.

But first, here’s a brief reprise from my News & Tribune column last year:

In the aftermath of the New Albany city council's wondrous resolution condemning tolls on existing bridges, I decided to canvass local politicians to learn their views on tolling, and to publish these at the NA Confidential blog. Of prime importance are those candidates on the November ballot, whose position on tolls obviously is important for informed voter choice.

Consequently, I was delighted to see that Chuck Freiberger and Ron Grooms (candidates for State Senate, District 46) and Shane Gibson and Ed Clere (candidates for State Representative, District 72) all have campaign pages on Facebook.

Social media sites represent immediacy and two-way communications, something especially valued when it comes to politicians. Once you are a “friend,” or in certain cases “like” a Facebook page, you may post comments and interact. I followed social media protocol, and posted my question at three of the four candidate pages, omitting Gibson, who'd already taken an anti-toll position in his Tribune guest column.

"Can you explain your position on tolls for the Ohio River Bridges Project? Thanks."

Only now, twelve months later, can I offer eager readers the reasoning for the deletion of my question and the expunging of my “like.”

Here is some information for the record.

Ed has never written any comment on the News and Tribune website and certainly not on his own column. As someone who sees how very busy Ed is, I can attest that he has little time to even look at his column online, much less post comments. In addition, Ed is a former newsman who would only write on this or any other newspaper site using his own name.

If you look back at Ed's columns online, you will see that comments come from a wide array of individuals. As far as we can tell, most of these are people with whom neither Ed nor I are acquainted. Ed appreciates all constructive comments on this site whether or not they are complimentary. The same is true of Ed’s Facebook page.I am the administrator of the State Representative Ed Clere Facebook page. I set up the page so that people could get information, link to Ed's columns or write comments. In order to write comments, you must first 'like' the page. This language suggests that FB intends that this be a positive medium. Again, Ed welcomes constructive comments.

On only one occasion have I deleted any comment from Ed's FB page.

It occurred late one weeknight. One individual posted a comment intended to politically undermine Ed and to engage him in an argument that this individual and his cohorts were working hard to create. A couple of other people copied and pasted the same comment and posted it on Ed’s FB page. Over the course of several minutes, additional identical comments lined the “wall” of the page, some written by outside agitators who do not live in Ed’s district or even in Indiana. Before 24 hours was finished, I fully expected to see additional disingenuous comments lining the page.

Like Ed, I have precious little time to mind a FB page and cannot log on at the school where I teach. Therefore, I took immediate action. I deleted the copied and pasted comments and denied some individuals access to the page. I did the deleting, and Ed has never deleted anything on his FB page.Bullying Ed or any other public official is not a productive way to communicate. Ed appreciates constructive conversation and provides easy ways to reach him.

Amy Clere … August 21, 2011, 11:21 PM

Apparently, when you’re the hardest working, most selfless power couple in two centuries of local politics, there’s just no time for any activity requiring the subtlety and discernment necessary to sense the fundamental difference in asking a question and “politically undermin(ing)” someone whose job description as legislator includes tasks like answering questions.

The doo doo’s gotten deeper and deeper during the intervening year, as the layers of Rep. Clere’s expedient centrist deceptions have been peeled away to reveal the ideological right-wing extremist behind the mask, and the reason NAC stays in the crosshairs of the smitten is that we remain among the only coherent voices of opposition in town where business-as-usual is terrified to point openly to the emperor’s terminal nudity -- politically speaking, of course.

---

But, dearest reader, please know that cults of personality are no mystery to me, for they are just as useful to publicans as politicians. Consequently, the fact that Rep. Clere is electronically trailed by a loving band of adulatory groupies, long since identified as fluffers in the finest traditions of the urban dictionary, comes as no surprise, but we must strip away their superfluous praise and the choreographed, regimented hosannas borrowed from the playbook of Kim Il Sung to burrow into the very diseased heart of the matter – clerely, paranoia of a breathtaking and locally unprecedented intensity.

---

From the first moment last August when NAC and others began publicly questioning Rep. Clere about tolling and the attendant idiocies of the Bridges Project, his reaction has been consistently and aggressively Nixonian – the immediate circling of wagons, the vilification and censorship of honest questioners, the unfounded suspicion that a vast oppositionist conspiracy has been arrayed against him, and the sheer, pervasive, unnecessary “they’re all out to get me” bile of it all.

It is very important to note that I intentionally use “his reaction” to describe the phenomenon, rather than “her” or “their.” That’s because as an elected official, the buck in such matters stops with Ed Clere himself, and as such, onlookers are advised to look past the “good cop, bad cop” black comedy routine, wherein Mrs. Clere defines and redefines what her husband knows and does not know, about what is said or not said.

Rather, it’s time to understand that he damn well knows the score, because if he’s as bright as we’re told, then he’s too bright not to know it, and anything less than perpetual brilliance would be more than a disappointment: It would be utterly divorced from the marketing program for the ascendant cult of personality, as was the case with Richard Nixon, as well.

As deities go, you simply cannot be all-knowing without being all-knowing, or else you’re not all-knowing ... and the genie leaps back into the bottle.

---

Meanwhile, the questions that have been peremptorily shunned, sneeringly dismissed and excised outright remain just as valid as when they were first asked.

Haven’t we every bit as much a right as other voters and taxpayers to ask legitimate questions about the legislative agenda an elected official pursues?

Haven’t we the right to offer evidence in rebuttal, and to explain our position to others in the community?

How does the mere act of asking questions – of articulating our disagreement – qualify us as disrespectful, conniving enemies of the true gospel?

Yes, we find the legislative positions espoused by Rep. Clere repugnant and at odds with our core system of beliefs, and so we articulate and perpetuate lawful opposition to them. At root, that’s what the Clere Channel detests the most: That we refuse to be obedient, when disobedience represents not only our civil and governmental philosophies, but embrace personal, ethical imperative.

What infuriates Rep. Clere, and what has succeeded in exposing the nannying, hectoring bully lurking just beneath the “aw, shucks” public façade, is that we dare to openly occupy roles as oppositionists at a time when subservience is being mandated by the ruling junta as a means of squelching dissent.

Moreover, we insist on being true to our core system of beliefs at the expense of new age patriotism, Indiana-style, defined as saluting via auto-tumescence in the presence of icons like Mitch Daniels, Tony Bennett, Ron Grooms, Ed Clere, Kerry Stemler, One Southern Indiana and all the other architects of theocratic, reactionary, class-war-encouraging Hoosierstan, circa 2011.

During the run-up to last year’s election, the Clere Channel Network’s genetic paranoia was manifested in identifying any question as an overt threat, invariably linked with the incumbent’s opponent, Shane Gibson, as though it was unimaginable that principled dissent in matters of tolling, teaching and taxpaying might exist apart from partisan electoral prerequisites.

And yet it does, and speaking for myself, muzzles qualify as neither viable alternatives nor fashionable accessories.

I'll content myself with truth-telling.

---

One final point, to which I’ll return in greater depth another time: When it comes to purely partisan attitudinal “bullying,” perhaps it takes one to know one, seeing as Rep. Clere is not above practicing this delightful art himself whenever the paranoiac mood seizes him.

Evidence? Let’s just say that I know of which I speak, and so does he, and because such tactics have been directed against me, I suspect that our harried hero comprehends far more of what is uttered in cyberspace than either he, she or their Clere Channel operatives let on.

Then again, maybe it’s just the toxicity in me. You know how we dissidents can be, so is it time for Tiananmen Square NA?

Urbanophile: "How big a boondoggle does a highway project have to be...?"

This bit of commentary comes from Southern Indiana native and well-recognized urban development consultant Aaron Renn, aka the Urbanophile, written soon after the latest bridges "deal" was announced. Offered as part of one of his Urbanoscope updates in January, it's worth a look for a quick, objective opinion from an experienced professional. Thanks to Save Louisville for pointing it out. Also worthy of review is Renn's previous, more in-depth support for 8664.

Ohio River Bridges Project Is Still a Boondoggle, by Aaron Renn, The Urbanophile.

Indiana and Kentucky have supposedly agreed on a plan to chop $500 million off the cost of the Ohio River Bridges Project in Louisville. Now the project will cost “only” $3.6 billion, or almost $3000 for every single man, woman, and child in the entire metro area – and a heckuva lot more than that once financing costs and user delay cost during two decades of construction are taken into account.

This project seems to be a quest for an answer to the question: How big a boondoggle does a highway project have to be before even the most fiscally conservative of politicians will go for a rethink? It’s amazing that leaders on both sides of the rivers continue to push for this plan that will be little more than a cash drain on the region. And a destructive one, obliterating a number of historic buildings in downtown Louisville and erecting an even more gigantic barrier across the riverfront.

There is a better way: 8664. This project will save a couple billion – and reconnect downtown Louisville with the river to boot. Much better, much much cheaper. What’s not to love? Go forward with the adjustment to move the pedestrian path the Big Four, then take the rest of the steps to make 8664 a reality.

By the way, the Star said this was a “Kentucky delegation” and didn’t mention any Southern Indiana representation. I noted one of the cost saving measures was downscoping the east end bridge. Did Kentucky pull a fast one on Mitch? The east end bridge goes through Louisville’s equivalent of Zionsville and the big money types there – who are hugely influential – have never and will never give up on cancelling that bridge outright or, failing that, reducing it as much as possible. This looks to me like Kentucky maneuvering for position moreso than cost savings. Watch out, Indiana.

Beyond the Bridges Project, Part 2.

If Kentuckiana ever decides to pursue transportation solutions, Streetfilms has done us a favor with its 10-part video series, "Moving Beyond the Automobile", which provides a primer on strategies implemented around the country and worldwide. We'll share a couple at a time, though any of them could act as antidote to the "our way is the only way" poison to which we've become so accustomed.





Beyond the Bridges Project, Part 1.

Beyond the Bridges Project, Part 1.

If Kentuckiana ever decides to pursue transportation solutions, Streetfilms has done us a favor with its 10-part video series, "Moving Beyond the Automobile", which provides a primer on strategies implemented around the country and worldwide. We'll share a couple at a time, though any of them could act as antidote to the "our way is the only way" poison to which we've become so accustomed.