the alternative to 8664: 8665!

yes, for all the wingnuts who support getting rid of 64 through downtown, here's an idea that should be right up your alley- lets get rid of interstate 65 downtown. this plan accomplishes eery single goal that 8664 does with the added benefit of spaghetti junction no longer existing.

here's my idea- we build the east end bridge, and then reroute interstate 65 onto 265. and unlike the plan for 8664, there is a full 2 lane interchange that could probably handle the increased traffic load unlike at the 64/265 interchange which is your classic cloverleaf design. 65 then rejoins its old routing in southern indiana. and due to the recent construction, i believe that that interchange has been redesigned for 2 lanes, saving a little more money. 65 in southern indiana becomes 365 that goes all the way to the river where it will terminate. in kentucky, the old section of 65 becomes 565 until it reaches eastern parkway where at arthur street/preston street, its lowest point in downtown louisville, the elevated highway is brought down and an at-grade parkway is put in its place. the kennedy bridge is therefore no longer necessary and broght down. with the removal of the kennedy, spaghetti junction is also no longer needed. put in conjunction with 8664, in its making the elevated riverfront expressway an at-grade parkway not only does the waterfront become less cluttered, more greenspace is created from getting rid of the kennedy bridge and its other auxilliary flyovers and roads.

then the next step is to 8631, as in us 31, known in louisville as the second street bridge and in indiana as the clark memorial bridge. bringing that bridge down opens up so much greenspace and then provides an unobstructed view of the skyline that the whackjobs crave so much.

you see the problem of getting rid of 64? any other plan that facilitates getting rid of another bridge across the riverfront automatically must become one worthy of study. they are all viable alternatives, and the 8664 people don't dare say that getting rid of 65 or the second street bridge is unreasonable lest they seem like hypocrites. plus they can't say a word about the qualifications of anyone who proposes such a plan because the qualifications of the ones who came up with 8664 are graphics design and computer programming.

so anyone out there want to tell me that my plan won't work and why it won't work?

--
post made via Opera using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/

best ways to ensure your city stays in the 1950s #64

getting rid of a major east-west highway. no, really.

whackjob tyler allen has decreed in his professional opinion (this guy is not a civil engineer by the way, he is a graphics designer by trade) that the best way to make louisville better is to build a bridge in the east end of the county, reroute the traffic of interstate 64 onto the current 265 and have 64 follow 265 in kentucky and indiana over towards its western terminus in new albany where 64 would rejoin its current signage.

a little background information:

this area is in dire need of an east end bridge. it was in fact logically planned for when, after the gene snyder freeway was completed in the late 80s and the lee hamilton expressway was extended years after that. both were given the designation interstate 265. the only thing that was missing was the connection point in the east end. it was going to happen eventually. also there is a need for a downtown bridge to handle the increased traffic loads on i-65's aging and inadequate span the john kennedy bridge. building a new bridge for 65 would also require a redesign of the confluence of spaghetti junction where 65, interstate 64 and interstate 71 converge. this plan has been unveiled since 2001. the final alternative was released in 2003.

tyler allen's organization first made local splashes in 2005, four years after the two bridge plan was unveiled and two years after the designs were released. meanwhile, everyone who has lived here before the plans were released knew that a bridge in the east end was needed. that means that before all of those dollars were spent on environmental impact studies, traffic flow studies, and general research of the area, tyler allen or anyone else of his ilk had ample opportunity to present their plan when a study for a new bridge in the east end was commissioned.

also, another factor in this town is that while it is fairly progressive in its politics, it isn't on anything else that would change it much in any way. a lot of people don't want anything to change at all. museum tower, a new interesting skyscraper that would change the skyline was vehemently opposed to even when it was announced that no one in the city would have to pay for it. a downtown arena that was proposed in two places was vehemently opposed to, saying that 50 year old freedom hall (out at the fairgrounds near nothing) was still an adequate place for basketball (it is) and conventions and concerts (its not). then they continually whine that louisville is falling behind indianapolis and nashville and even memphis.

so how does this talk keep your city mired in the 1950s? easy. by talking about this plan, convincing two bleeding heart liberals on the metro council (one of which is the council president) you are wasting time. time that could be used you know, actually BUILDING bridges. so the concrete isn't actually there yet, nor any other necessary material, but it soon will be. and all of this hassling over the study of this plan can take months. that's months that delay the project from going forward. that's also months delayed from getting funding secured. there is no money set aside for this project. yet. but putting aside time
to study this plan can delay any real opportunity to secure funding easily. also the plan presented as it is for the current plan is unworkable. ten years ago, it would have been something to seriously consider, but not now.

here are its major flaws in my opinion.
1. the time when this alternative plan was presented. lets give the wingnuts the benefit of the doubt and say the proposed routing plans were revealed in 2001. its still four years from that time to when these people came up with their plan- way too late in the funding and planning process for the one that has the redesigned spaghetti junction.

2. it does nothing to address the issue of the kennedy bridge. and this is my main problem with this plan. according to what the wingnuts want, or assume from their plan, building a new downtown bridge will be unneccesary because of all the rerouted traffic to the east end will relieve the traffic flow that comes downtown. the media assumed that dewey defeated truman. michigan assumed that appalachian state would be a pushover. kentucky assumed that gardiner webb would be just another victim. problem though- each time they were wrong. you cannot assume any of this, especially when the plan doesn't address any of the other issues, like road expansion of the gene snyder to three lanes in a high wealth part of town, one that is begrudgingly allowing for the digging of an exploratory tunnel for the project. you think that these people are going to give up any more of their land, not to mention deal with the increased noise that construction and additional traffic is going to bring?

3. they haven't studied the traffic patterns of downtown to see whether or not the loss of 64 will affect travel. a real life test happened this summer. 64 was closed downtown for two months to repair the downtown stretch as well as replace bridge joints. i never ventured downtown so i have no personal insights into the matter, but traffic, in a word, was horriffic. the 8664 people and supporters will say that things like that won't happen with the east end bridge built, but they completely misunderstand the issue. while through traffic would certainly take the new bypass, it does absolutely nothing to address the locals. the plan is for 64 to become an at-grade parkway past 65. how would turning a high speed 55 mile an hour suggested speed limit downtown into a street level 35 mile an hour speed limit complete with traffic lights going to help alleviate downtown traffic? yeah, i don't know either.

4. the people who brought up this issue are not, i repeat, NOT civil engineers. nor do they have experience in any sort of civil planning. you know how this plan initially came about? tyler allen, the graphics designer, took a picture of a shot of downtown overlooking spaghetti junction and photoshopped the elevated riverfront expressway out. that's right- 8664 is based on nothing more than a horrific fark photoshop. and then the fantasy went from there. build a downtown bridge. convert the old 64 into a parkway. reroute 64 onto a highway that can barely sustain the traffic it has now. brilliant planning.

i think i have evidence that most people who have heard of this plan think its a folly as much as i do. in the story forums of the local fishwrap courier journal, one person who has some close ties to the movement is spamming the forums up and down promoting a local forum they would have to address any issues the people may have. it isn't that the courier journal isn't for the plan (which is true, they aren't for it) and refuses to give any information about any forums (they haven't yet, but this forum is in another week or so, so give it time), but that these people need to constantly harp on when the forum is tells me that they don't think they have enough juice with the common people. also one thing to note on their website (which i will not link to, use google) is that it does not have any iformation on its two main protagonists tyler allen and jc stites. i can't speak for you, but if someone is proposing a major traffic plan that will affect the traffic patterns of not only one metropolitan area but major national east-west traffic as well, i want to know what the credentials of the proposers are. from the little searching i have done, allen's info is posted. stites is not. from what i can tell, he has nothing to do with the transportation industry or civil engineering as well.

we need to get these bridges built, the east end one especially. for the love of the city you live or work in, please dump this stupid idea of pie-in-the-sky plan that won't work. or if you keep on insisting on this silliness, next, i'll propose an idea that is equally valid as well as planned and designed.
--
post made via Opera using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/