The Horseshoe Foundation has offered an incentive of one million dollars to get the Sherman Minton Bridge open earlier. While the community spirit of this organization is well-known and welcome, I can't help but wonder what could have been a better use of this benevolence.
Since the bridge closed in September, what if that noteworthy sum had been committed to a timely reopening of the K & I Bridge? A minor, but vital, link between New Albany and Louisville would have been re-established. Access for cross-river workers may have been eased a tiny bit. Off hour traffic would have been a snap. (Direct travel to the Horseshoe Casino would have been easy, as would the directions--get off the bridge, turn left, stop at the boat.)
But now, as the imminent reopening of the Sherman Minton approaches, the renewed K & I would settle back into a pattern of reduced relevance for workers and gamblers, yet the bridge would remain. We could soon be engaged in a productive discussion of how best to incorporate The Little Bridge That Could've into a soon-to-be-unveiled Greenway and,how best to utilize that structure as a link for bike and pedestrian traffic across the river.
Those primary uses of the bridge would not preclude the use of the bridge as a steam valve to let off some of the congestion caused by a bridge closure in the future. It would also serve as a link to life saving emergency services if another bridge were blocked or closed.
Apparently, the value of having the Shermn Minton open about 25 days earlier is worth about $40,000 per day to the casino. Once the gamblers have replenished the coffers, perhaps the Horseshoe Foundation would see fit to throw about a month's worth of that forty Gs a day toward a revitalized K & I bridge. All the current incentive is buying now is some time, but a renewed K & I would be a real and lasting benefit to the community.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have loved the K&I since I rode the Daisy Line to Louisville. I used to use it frequently and still would. The problem I suspect is the ongoing expense for maintenance and insurance beyond what Horseshoe would fund. The payment for early completion seems outside the Foundation's mission and requires some convoluted mechanisms to pay the contractor who already has substantial incentives in the contract. My instinct is that Horseshoe should stay out of it.
Post a Comment