With the closing of the Sherman Minton Bridge, many have suggested that the K & I Bridge be re-opened to pick up some of the slack left by the main bridge's closing. I am encouraged by correspondence and the resulting conversation with representatives of the Norfolk Southern Railroad, the owners of the K & I.
I have used that bridge often when it was open to the public. I have ridden across it often on a bicycle as well. The latter conveyance provides a particularly exhilarating sensation. Since the deck is made of steel grates one can see through, as one speeds up on a bike, the deck visually disappears, giving the sensation of flying above the river. I digress. The point is, I have a history of riding across that bridge both in cars, buses, and on bikes. And this history has caused me to miss an important point about the bridge's utility as a regular full-service bridge.
When the bridge was open to regular public use the train tracks approached and entered the bridge more or less as a continuation of Vincennes Street, so car traffic ran parallel with the train tracks. As I looked at the bridge yesterday, up close, it dawned on me that the west traffic lane of the bridge is not likely usable because it is now dissected by the railroad tracks. Both days I've gone to look at the bridge, it has had a train parked across that lane. The bridge might be used by the railroad as a kind of staging area where the trains are held until the tracks open up farther down the line. Even if the railroad would quit using the tracks for such a purpose, if indeed that is how they are used, the automobile approach to the west lane of the bridge would require extensive rebuilding and paving.
The paving is an investment I think should be made.We have seen with the closing of the Sherman Minton that the city and the region is negatively affected by disruptions to bridge traffic. It just makes sense to have a backup.
The most encouraging discussion with railroad officials relative to our current situation revolved around using the bridge for ambulances and medical personnel. Passage over the bridge would require meeting an on-site railroad worker who would open locked gates. This would address one of the most perilous eventualities of the current bridge closing. I am hopeful the Norfolk Southern will make its determination quickly on this matter.
The other encouraging thing to come out of the discussion is the apparent willingness to look at further use of the bridge after the current mess is sorted out. Many have longed to have the bridge open as a link between Louisville's River Walk and Southern Indiana's Greenway. I am more confident now that the small steps we make during the current situation can lead to wider use of the K & I in the future. Since the bridge is a private structure it will be up to City officials to work with Norfolk Southern personnel to work out a plan for pedestrian/bike use of the bridge, and also to put in place a permanent plan for emergency use even after the current problem with the Sherman Minton is solved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dear Mr. Gonder,
I need some clarity on the workings of city and county finances. Since everyone who lives in the city also lives in Floyd Co., do city residents contribute any less (per capita) to county government than non-city residents contribute?
If everyone pays the same to the county irrespective of where in the county you live, then shouldn't services that benefit everyone in the county be paid 100% from county funds?
This would apply to parks, 911, and a number of other areas where the county looks to the city to pay. If any city residents' property or other taxes go to county bank accounts, isn't this double payment (double taxation) of city residents?
Please explain.
Thank you.
Anonymous:
It is a general policy to not comment, or even let stand, anonymous comments.
Yours, however, is stated intelligently and respectfully. Therefore, I'll take a stab at answering as best I can.
City residents do not contribute less to county gevernment than do county residents. As you know, city residents actually contribute to both city and county government.
Your suggestion that services to benefit all county residents be paid totally by county taxes, would sound at first blush to be the fairest way to proceed.
The separation of city and county goevernment is, perhaps just a remnant of a time when the City was organized to provide a higher level of services to its residents. In the days when the county was primarily the agricultural locus of our local society, the need for a high level of services to county residents was not a given. Nowadays, the only thing which separates the city from many in the county is a few extra minutes of driving time. People have packed up their urban expectations and moved them to the county. Since the county is a more diffuse area, the services must be spread over the greater geographical area, while living within a revenue system that is tailored for the agrarian heritage of the county. County residents, it could be argued, actually impose a higher cost on the exploitation of county-provided resources because those amenities have to be spread over a larger area. It simply costs more to deliver services over a wide area than to do so in a concentrated area. (The same problem exists in relation to those who claim the post office should be able to compete with UPS or Fed Ex. The post office, by the U.S. Constitution guarantees to deliver letters at a national price to any address in the continental United States. UPS and Fed Ex, by virtue of their duty to their shareholders and their respective bottom lines, do not make the same offer. They do not offer a service; they offer a product.)
In the past those who lived in the county expected to pay laess because they expected a lower level of services. Today as many move from cities in search of something they don't perceive as available in cities,they carry with them an expectation of an elevated level of services, at least elevated above what original county residents may have expected. This is one element of sprawl.
I believe all county roads are now paved. That good carries a cost. That cost excludes other goods from being "purchased" on behalf of county residents.
The current situation in which the county has not paid its agreed share of parks was a real concern, for some City Council members, in the acceptance of the proposed 911 plan. While the county had agreed to fund parks in an equitable manner, it must have found its budget stretched beyond the capacity to honor that agreement, when it had to choose between the agreement and providing the higher level of surfaces expected by its resdients.
I'm getting a sign fomr Blogger that I've used up more space than I should.
cotinued...
It could be said that City residents suffer "double taxation". When county services are shared by City and County, perhaps the best way to equalize the situation would be to have an extra payment for county taxpayers who wish to avail themselves of those services. This would not be a general increase in revenues, simply an adjustment to pay for those extra services. Since I mentioned UPS earlier, the extra fee could be similar to the zoned differential UPS charges to ship a package to a greater distance.
This answer is not intended to be a comprehensive answer to your question. It is simply some reactions to the question.
Thank you for the reply.
Post a Comment