"Transit group loses bid to join lawsuit against ORBP" [leoweekly.com]

"Unlikely Allies" [leoweekly.com]

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?

1. 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.

2. 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 ...

   • oil was around $20 a barrel
   • driving was forecast to increase forever
   • bus public transit was forecast to expand service to keep pace with the new roads
   None of these assumptions turned out to be right, but the FHWA has not appropriately responded to these concerns.

What does it mean that you're "intervening" in a suit?

Audience Proves that Plan Doesn't Make Sense

Well that could have gone better.

The most telling blow went to the woman who asked [paraphrased]: "How can the government ask property owners to donate their property for a bike-lane / multi-use-path / whatchamacallit, when the government itself won't put its money where its mouth is. The government is building a brand new bridge - with an astounding lack of bike-ped facilities - breaking the back of the corridor right in the middle of the spinal cord. What gives?"

Nobody had a good reply. The Harrod's Creek bridge was 'off the table'. Nobody from the government was interested to discuss it, even though it's the middle of the corridor. 'Doh! This demonstrated a stunning lack of big-picture coordination.

In another forum, some members of Metro government have tried to spin the new bridge, with 2-count 12-foot lanes, as bike-ped friendly, but this is clearly absurd, as it will be replacing a bridge with 1-count 14-foot lane. The latter becomes a 9-foot vehicular lane and a 5 foot bike-ped lane in a pinch. With the vehicular speeds restricted by the narrow passage, it's tough to argue that the 24-footer is anything but a safety downgrade for human-powered travel.

The excuse is that the inadequate bridge design is 'grandfathered in' by being on the books before our great city became 'bike/ped aware'.  The bridge design money is a sunk cost. If that design no longer reflects our societal values, why should we spend a penny on it?

The answer is below the fold.

the "KTAP" issue

• Dr. Ron Crouch to speak at CART Quarterly Meeting
• World Car Free Day Rally
• Bluegrass Energy & Green Living Expo Planning
• Introducing KTAP & the Ohio River Bridges Project
• Washington State Buying Track to Get Farmer's Goods to Market
• Study: Does Transit Work?  A Conservative Reappraisal

the 10 Commandments issue

• Nina Walfoort to speak at quarterly meeting
• World Car Free Day preperations
• TARC News
• Lexington Area Sierra Club
• Car Free Guide to Clifton
• Ohio River Bridges, again
• Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?
• Safe Routes To School is a winning issue
• China passes USA in CO₂ emissions
• Vatican issues 10 commandments for drivers