Posted March 6, 200619 yr This is an op-ed I couldn't disagree more with. All we need is for longer commutes and more gas to be wasted, not to mention no stop in urban sprawl. We need to start building up more and not out and be less depedent on cars, not more. Yeah, I know, preaching, choir, just had to get that off my chest. New outerbelt would solve growth problem Sunday, March 05, 2006 I was surprised by the counties surrounding Franklin turning a deaf ear to land conservation, as opposed to unfettered and chaotic growth ("Region’s growth plan hits barriers," Dispatch article, Monday). I was even more surprised to find that the federal, state and local governments provide about $8.2 million for the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission to discuss such simplistic issues. Simply scanning the map presented in the article, one readily sees a well-defined "outer-outerbelt" with about 15 major interchanges. People will live only in areas with ready access. Announce the intention to build the outer-outerbelt, construct it incrementally over the next 10 to 20 years and the issue is moot... RICHARD J. DICK Columbus http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/03/05/20060305-B4-08.html
March 6, 200619 yr More proof that many people still cannot think beyond their car keys. BTW: A former Franklin County Engineer once proposed an "Outer" Outer Belt. The idea was pretty universally put down by wiser heads. The land acquisition alone would be a major expense, not to mention a legal and environmental nightmare.
March 6, 200619 yr The outer-outerbelt idea That was part of the I-73 plan from mid-90s Yeah, we're nowhere near that.
March 6, 200619 yr outer outerbelt = i-75, i-80, i-77, us-35.... who's with me, eh? :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot:
March 7, 200619 yr outer outerbelt = i-75, i-80, i-77, us-35.... who's with me, eh? :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: Change US 35 to US 50 and I'll be in.
March 7, 200619 yr I don't think it's necessary in Columbus right now and if they dont build it, it would promote development inside the city.
March 7, 200619 yr Change US 35 to US 50 and I'll be in. i'll agree to that, but only if we can give mariemont a bypass. maybe if we run a sixteen lane highway through the middle of indian hill, we can make it work
March 7, 200619 yr Change US 35 to US 50 and I'll be in. i'll agree to that, but only if we can give mariemont a bypass. maybe if we run a sixteen lane highway through the middle of indian hill, we can make it work Anything to make Columbus more urban. :-D
March 7, 200619 yr Mr. Dick has never been to Houston, has he? Right now in Maryland, the state government has been pushing the Intercounty Connector (ICC) for several years. The ICC was put on the planning boards 40 years ago as part of an "outer beltway", but was never built. Studies have already shown it would do nothing to alleviate congestion on the Capital Beltway, despite a cost of $3 billion. Maybe it's just my naive little brain here, but wouldn't you reassess the need for something after 40 years? Consider that much of the traffic nightmare in suburban Maryland was only created after they decided to widen I-270 from 6 lanes to 12 in the late 1980s.
March 12, 200619 yr Maybe it's just my naive little brain here, but wouldn't you reassess the need for something after 40 years? Consider that much of the traffic nightmare in suburban Maryland was only created after they decided to widen I-270 from 6 lanes to 12 in the late 1980s. Except that I can rattle off freeway projects that were proposed 30, 50 years ago in Columbus (and other cities across the nation) that got completed because once they are "on the book" anyone who believes those plans can be used to their advantage will bring them out of mothball.
Create an account or sign in to comment