What Part of NO Does ORBP Not Understand?

This morning's C-J notes that Jim King is considering a resolution opposing tolls on existing bridges. King doesn't get an A for it -- he states that he would only support the resolution if it contained language supporting the two-bridge solution. Still, it's good to see King supporting the "Say No to Tolls" group.

The part I don't get is the response of the bridge commission. In the print version (not in the online version), their representative basically said that it was a bad idea to rule out any form of funding at this time, including tolls. The commission wants to keep all its options open, including tolling.

Have these people lost the ability to hear and see? Do they not read the polls that show huge opposition to tolls, especially on existing bridges? Do they not hear the ongoing call from all corners to build the East End Bridge first, then see if we even need the downtown bridge? Last month the New Albany city council passed a resolution both opposing tolls AND encouraging the commission to get started on the EEB.

It is time for the new mayor of Louisville, whomever that may be, to take hold of this project and get it off the dead-end path it is on, even if the C-J and River Fields get the vapors. We need to get the hazardous traffic out of downtown and on the 265 loop. We need to protect Butchertown and the Great Lawn. And we need to make it plain to the ORBP commission that tolls on existing bridges is a non-starter. Here's hoping that the commission has a group miracle and recovers the ability to see and hear again.