93. Two Bridges good? Yes, but where?

I was asked today which of the designs for I-64's widening over Waterfront Park I preferred, assuming such work will ever come to fruition as part of the "Two Bridges" project crossing more lanes of traffic over the Ohio River, here along the Left Bank at Milepost 606. Last week, David Hawpe, editor of the local edition of the USA Today's stepchild, the once great newspaper known as the Courier-Journal, offered photos of several options for such a bridge. There is even a link on their site where one can go and show their support for one or all of the bridges. I assure you at some point they will report that "x" number of people showed preferences for one or another of the plans, thus giving credence to the idea that the people and the Courier are of one mind in this endeavor. We and they are not.

I have no intention of promoting by a vote a plan for a bridge I would never vote to have built. That's akin to asking which "form of Capital Punishment" would I prefer the Commonwealth use when it chooses to take a person's life as a sentence for the conviction of a crime. I do not prefer my Commonwealth take such measures and thus have no desire to say one form is preferable over another. As a candidate for Metro Council in 2002, one of the questions asked by the Courier-Journal board was my position on "The Bridges." My response has not changed in the ensuing - and bridgeless - five years.

I think we need an East End Bridge connecting the two stubs of I-265. I think we need a Southwest Bridge connecting the Greenbelt/Snyder with IN211 up the hill and ultimately to I-64. I do not think we need to encourage additional traffic through our downtown interstate system, coursing through both our hospital zone as well as our newly built Waterfront Park, by adding more lanes of traffic, either on land or across the river.

The C-J does not accept any differences of opinion once their minds have been made up, ergo do not expect a fourth option. The downtown bridge is one of three recent examples of this attitude of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts," the other two being the passage of Merger being financially feasible, which has been proven wrong; and the new Arena being financially feasible - which in time as Councilman Jim King is finding out, will also be proven wrong, although I doubt Jim Host and his host of friends, including those at the C-J, really care as their receipts will likely come in up front.

I supported and support building an Arena downtown. It is an amenity a world-class Big Town such as Louisville should have. And I think the government should pay for such amenities, so ultimately, even the payment of operating costs is probably something we should do. But we should be told the truth about such costs up front, as opposed to estimates and promises, and rosy pictures, and powerful but pointless power-point presentations.

The same is true with a downtown bridge. Will we be told the true cost? Whither the additional noise, the lessening of livability; the hours of time, land, and lives spent during the construction? Finally, as having a new bridge downtown will ultimately lead to the widening of I-64 and I-71, what of Seneca Park, the Cochran Tunnel, and the tranquil scenery between Louisville upriver to Blankenbaker Lane along I-71. When this land is taken for widening, then what?

Where do we draw the line - or do we?

I support 8664, even if it does not fully address Louisville's traffic problems. In my mind, it addresses them much better than any current plan for a downtown bridge.

Jeff Noble