Nine Observations From A Bridges Debacle Meeting

The Say NO to Bridge Tolls folks sent out a release yesterday with nine observations from Tuesday evening’s Ohio River Bridges Debacle meeting:

  1. There were 48 speakers.
  2. Of those that mentioned tolls: 12 spoke in favor of tolls; and 22 spoke against tolls (or, almost 2 to 1 against tolls). The previous evening, at the Indiana bridge forum, while no formal tally was documented, there appeared to be about 3 to 1 against tolls.
  3. None of the 48 speakers argued against building the East End Bridge. Whereas about half spoke against building the downtown bridge.
  4. The first speaker was a college professor who asked that the Bridges Authority consider how tolls would add an extra fee to students who could least afford such a cost, especially due to the recent increased tuition expenses.
  5. The final speaker was Bill Cox, a former Federal Highway Administrator for Kentucky and who oversaw construction of the Snyder / I-265 Freeway. He recommended building the East End Bridge only and fixing Spaghetti Junction. Then determine if a new downtown bridge was needed.
  6. No speakers indicated a bridge should not be built. And, all speakers indicated the project should be built sooner and not later.
  7. Several speakers singled out the conservation group River Fields for their delaying lawsuit against the project. No one from River Fields spoke at the forum.
  8. All speakers were courteous, civil, informative, and for the most part, respectful, which is a true compliment to Kentuckiana residents.
  9. In summary: the resulting message to the Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority is now clearer than ever: build the East End Bridge first, with no tolls.

It seems all of those people in the photo and all of those who spoke want the East End Bridge built – now.

Funny how the Bridges “Authority” ignores what the community wants.

1 thought on “Nine Observations From A Bridges Debacle Meeting

  1. As stated above the speakers were approx. 2 to 1 in favor of prioritizing the east end bridge and either stridently against or ambivalent towards the downtown bridge. If one followed the traditional media’s coverage of this issue one would be left with the impression that the inverse was true. WFPL’s coverage in particular has been disappointing in its laziness and distortion of reality. Equally baffling was the lack of a single TV station bothering to record the last opportunity for public comment on the revised version of the largest infrastructure project this community has ever undertaken. I wish I could say I was surprised by our local media’s incompetence but after following the Bridges debacle for the last 10 years nothing surprises me anymore.

Comments are closed.