At the CART annual meeting tonight, it was decided we would post some comments CART and others had made on the Ohio River Bridges Project. These appear below.
If you would like to make your own comment, go to this page, and check out the right hand column. The latest round apperantly ends August 25th.
The Ohio River Bridges project prioritizes car & truck dependence for the region at the cost of all other transportation alternatives. Your last chance to tell the government to find us better options is now through July 13. Follow this link and let them know what you think of their three options, none of which include significant increases to public transit service.
Featuring the first ever Benefit-Cost analysis of the project, in an appendix we're still waiting to see. Share and enjoy!
Motion introduced opposing the levying of tolls on existing infrastructure in order to pay for new motoring infrastructure. The motion has over 16 co-sponsors in a 26-seat body, so it is sure to pass. See the C-J article. Louisville will join New Albany, which passed a similar measure, opposing tolling and the construction of a new I-65 bridge if tolls would be required.
The Big 4 Bridge will be completed in a year or two, if we can find $12m for the Indiana ramp. But why should we build this bridge? Read more...
A cn|2 politics poll finds only 14.2% of Louisville voters favor the two-bridge configuration championed by the Ohio River Bridges Project. Furthermore, a whopping 50.3% favor building only an east-end bridge. Credit where it's due - it's a very, very good day over at 8664.
"Neither New Bridge" exceeds expectations as well!
Additional cn|2 coverage of the poll can be found here.
Update: LEO weighs in.
Updated 7/1/2010 -DM
CART has filed a motion to intervene in the National Trust for Historic Preservation & River Field's suit against Ohio River Bridges Project. Here, in Q&A format, are some frequently asked questions about the suit.
Why did CART file suit?
NEPA requires all reasonable alternatives to be fully and fairly evaluated in an EIS. FHWA did a preliminary analysis of light rail and found that it would not reasonably meet ORBP's objectives so it was never evaluated as an alternative in the EIS. FHWA proposed stations inconvenient to commuters and nonsensically had more stations placed in Indiana than Kentucky in the preliminary analysis, treating light rail unfairly.
When you invest in a massive captial project backed by federal funding, environmental laws force a review of the project if conditions change. ORBP was designed in the early 90s, when ...
What does it mean that you're "intervening" in a suit?