I don't "do" downtown Columbus.

^ Shesh, Columbus loves utilitarian architecture

I don't "do" downtown Columbus.

 

And I don't do much of anything north of I-20.  At least you could sleepwalk to the location I was asking about (with the risk of being ran over while at it)

    "The graphic on the right is an aerial of Downtown Columbus, Ohio. Red indicates surface parking lots, at least 40 percent of the city. This means that the 15th largest city in the USA has pavement where hundreds of businesses, restaurants, offices, and especially residences should be. But Columbus is far from being alone. Dozens of Heartland cities are similar parking lots.

 

    Just by looking at the ground, it's clear that having a place to park cars is far more more important to local Columbus residents than buildings.  After all, most of Columbus' historic buildings were torn down to pave these lots. This simple parking lot example is one of many that suggests that, for most of us, providing a thriving city for people isn't a top priority. 

 

    It's time to target values as the primary determinant of urban revitalization.  Until values tip toward appreciating cities and the urban lifestyle they can provide, especially In the Heartland, very little can ever be expected to change.  Vital American cities are about 60 years past due."

 

Continue http://www.geturban.com/KyleEzell2.htm

Your link doesn't work.

Hey, I know Kevin Chastine!

 

It looks like Tetris, with all that red.

Your link doesn't work.

 

Try it again and let me know, since I just tried it twice and it's working. I think you may have clicked when I was modifying the link.

OK, now its working.

"Strategically Located Parking", just like Dayton.

The situation sucks and Columbus seems to be one of the worst cities as far as downtown not being filled in. I wish parking structures weren't so expensive. Atleast that way less surface could be taken up.

^yea i agree with that.  that aerial is depressing.  the car culture has got to go!

We'll get even more support for the streetcar the more parking lots are converted into buildings where people live.

"The biggest complaint about downtown Columbus is lack of parking". Are you kidding me?! I had to go to Columbus for traffic court and it was EASY AS HELL to find a parking spot. This was around noon on a weekday, too. I also noticed the parking meters cost significantly less than in Cincinnati.

I used to Columbus every summer for ComFest, and usually stayed dowtown.  One time I was at the Westin over off of Capital Square, and decided to explore downtown a bit, on foot...so I walked due east of the Capital to, i guess, the public library.  Lots and lots of surface parking, but also some intriguing remnants of what used to be a neighborhood at one time.

 

What i thought was suprising was the parking lots so close to the capital.  That stretch of lots running due east could be a fantastic neo-traditional urban redevelopment or housing project, focusing on the capital.

 

Also, looking at some old maps (I've become more interested in Columbus history) it seems the areas that are mostly lots (the part of town within that freeway loop) was some of the oldest parts of the city...perhaps it was all housing like German Villiage at one time?

 

 

The German Village used to end near the Capital (and there are some remnants left) but of course that's now...umm...Central Parking!

:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:

How can we raise property value in Downtown Columbus enough to make it far more worth it to build on these lots? Evidently these parking lots are more profitable, otherwise they wouldnt exist.

Raise the tax on land, make it revenue neutral by lowing the taxes on buildings.  That will spur redevelopment by making it expensive to hold on to vacant lots and low intensity uses like parking lots.

That's a great idea. Build a parking structure underground, with retail on the street level and office space/apts above it and allow them significantly lower taxes. Has this idea been presented?

It hasn't been presented as far as I know.  The lower taxes on the building you're describing would be lower-vs-building that same building under the current tax structure.  All land owners still pay property tax on land+improvements, so taxes would still be higher on the parking garage than on the parking lot, but the difference wouldn't be as great, and the revenue to property tax rate would be more stilted in favor of the garage.

Columbus is not too much different than Indy or charlotte or many other "newer" cities which are more  suburban in nature.

 

I was speaking with a few people in Columbus the other day and they mentioned that all the new development in the city centers around the Arena District area as many companies and firms that used to be located downtown close to the Statehouse in one of the towers are abandoning that part of the city to move to one of the newer office condos closer to the arena district. It seems as if much of the commercial growth down in that area is not so much from new businesses moving to an urban environment but from existing downtown companies leaving buildings such as Huntington Tower and Borden and relocating to the arena area. I wonder if there really is a new increase in jobs in overall downtown Columbus or if it is more of a repositioning of jobs to a differeent area of the city?

 

On a separate note, I wonder if someone has a similar graphic as far as parking lot areas in Downtown cinci and Cleveland, or if anyone would speculate on what it may look like?

Columbus also has a large number of big commercial buildings with important regional offices, all along 270 on the north, east, south, and west sides of the outer belt, off of the exits.

As much as I would like to turn back the hands of time, this is an unfortunate reality in Columbus' downtown. Given the size and scope of the downtown area, it's probably nearly impossible to rebuild ontop of all of those red parcels. However, the good new is that the problem has been isolated, and work is being done to correct the problem.

 

For example, the new justice center was specifically chosen to be built on the 4-block surfrace lot across from the Westin. An affiliate of Schottenstein's, which owns the lots, sold the land to the county at a reduced rate because they too saw the importance in reducing the glut of surface parking. The Riversouth area, which is probably Columbus' most problematic surface lot parcel, is being developed by the city's saving grace, Nationwide Realty Investments. Several new condo projects, including Sixty East Spring, The Terraces, and part of the Brunson Building have been built on former surface lots.

 

So while there is still obviously a lot of work to do, at least there is already much being done to try an alleviate the problem.

 

I wonder if there really is a new increase in jobs in overall downtown Columbus or if it is more of a repositioning of jobs to a differeent area of the city?

 

The scenario you described is very true; many companies have relocated to the Arena District from the downtown core, especially from the Huntington Building. The majority of these businesses, interestingly enough, are lawfirms. However the overall trend in downtown Columbus has been of falling vacancy rates, both due to new businesses coming in as well as the coversion of several office buildings to condos. Most noteably, from the business side, is OhioHealth's decision to move 350 employees to the Borden building downtown. Both the LeVeque Tower and One Columbus Center have posted increased vacancy rates as well. Granted, just like the parking situation, Columbus' office vacany rate has a long way to go, but it is slowly improving. The key is to keep the momentum going.

 

 

Columbus also has a large number of big commercial buildings with important regional offices, all along 270 on the north, east, south, and west sides of the outer belt, off of the exits.

 

I would agree with three of the 4 cardinal directions there. The south side of the outerbelt remains largely untouched by corporate offices. There are a lot of industrial parks on the south side, but as far as regional offices go, the north outerbelt stretching from Dublin to Westerville wins hand-down.

 

On a separate note, I wonder if someone has a similar graphic as far as parking lot areas in Downtown cinci and Cleveland, or if anyone would speculate on what it may look like?

 

I would speculate that Cincinnati's core would be, for the most part, completely free of the red blocks. I can only think of two significant surface lots in downtown Cincinnati off the top of my head, whatever else is negligable. I would wager the same for Cleveland, minus a few parcels left to be filled in around the Warehouse district. I think Columbus wins the dubious distinction of surface lot king  :-P

That map is interesting.  Although you can see how many zillions of parking lots there are, you can also see that there is in fact a core area free of surface parking.

 

On a separate note, I wonder if someone has a similar graphic as far as parking lot areas in Downtown cinci and Cleveland, or if anyone would speculate on what it may look like?

I'm bored and it's easy enough to do... I'll whip up a couple of maps and post them later.

The future is now!  By "later" in the above post I apparently meant not that much later.  These are just rough drawings that are probably innacurate in places.

 

Cincinnati... in red are the surface lots within the official CBD boundaries.  Darker red is a few more lots nearby.

 

Cleveland... your official CBD is too damn big.  (But hey, you've done a good job of tearing down a lot of it. :wink:)  I just traced the lots as far over as E 18th, and kinda sorta to the Cuyahoga on the other end.  You don't need red graphics to discern the various seas of parking lots outside that anyway.

good work pb. it looks plenty correct enough at a glance. ugh.

 

ah yes the asphalt legacy of the teardowns in cleveland....sad aint it? makes ya misty.  :cry:

 

 

In terms of price being paid, downtown Columbus is killing Delaware County. Whodathunkit?

 

Downtown condominiums soar in price and popularity

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Debbie Gebolys

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

As Downtown enters the fifth year of a home-building push, prices are rising nearly as high as some of the skyscrapers.  Downtown condominium and apartment developers say they have more buyers than units to sell. Price, they say, seems to be less of an issue.  When the first Downtown condos hit the market in 2003, asking prices at Connextions Lofts and Renaissance averaged just less than $174,000, for an average 1,017 square feet.  The most expensive condos, according to the Columbus Downtown Development Center, were priced at $264,900,

 

One day last week, the Columbus Board of Realtors took stock of Downtown listings priced from $200,000 to $500,000.  They compared them to similarly priced houses in southern Delaware County, the 12th-fastest-growing county in the nation.  Costs per square foot of living space, the real-estate standard for comparing properties, showed how much Downtown prices are rising.  Downtown had 41 listings, priced at an average of nearly $237 per square foot.  Southern Delaware County had 937 listings, priced at $128 per square foot.

 

More at www.dispatch.com

Newest city district plan back on ice

 

The Warehouse District may still have a chance at becoming the next hot destination for downtown Columbus living, but a deal that could have spurred that along has fallen through.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/04/03/tidbits1.html

25 million for 400,000 sq feet = 125k for 2000 sq feet of space. I wonder how much rehabbing the building need though.

---------

6 neighborhoods will get cleanup

Columbus Dispatch, 4/7/06

 

Columbus has selected six neighborhoods for the Neighborhood Pride cleanup effort this year.  The first cleanup is to start this month in an area west of Maize Road and south of Morse Road.  Mayor Michael B. Coleman announced the six neighborhoods yesterday during an appearance at Maize Elementary School on the North Side.

 

The other neighborhoods are Berwyn East/Thunderbird Acres on the South Side; the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville neighborhood on the Near East Side; the Camp Chase area on the Hilltop; Vassor Village on the South Side; and an area near Hudson Street and McGuffey Road in North and South Linden.

 

Hilliard offers growth plan

Columbus Dispatch, 4/18/06

A choice 2,000-acre plot that’s primed for development as Hilliard grows would be restricted to low-density homes and estates under a plan city officials proposed yesterday.

 

The land, currently in Brown Township, sits within an area that the overcrowded Hilliard school district has earmarked for its anticipated third high school. District leaders hailed the proposal as a way to address their concerns about an influx of students that a large-scale development could bring.

 

Under the plan, residential development on the tract would be limited to one house per acre, on average, in clustered communities. Developers would be required to provide storm and sanitary sewers and a half-acre of open space for each acre they build on, Hilliard Mayor Don Schonhardt said.

 

The plan "is unlike any development you have seen in Hilliard," he said.

 

I found this very interesting.  Sounds like Hilliard is really feeling the affects of sprawl on thier services!  Hopefully this will be a trend among suburbs who realize that sprawl=unsustainable.  I think it may take decades, but things will self-correct eventually.  This is proof.

From the AP, 5/3/06:

 

Ohio joins two other states to woo federal clean coal project

 

COLUMBUS (AP) – Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania said Tuesday they are pledging to unite their research resources to increase the region’s chances of landing a federal project for a $1 billion power plant with nearly pollution-free emissions.

 

Ohio and Kentucky, both submitting sites for consideration, will create a research group with Pennsylvania in which universities and private technology companies would conduct the research that’s integral to the FutureGen project, according to an agreement signed Friday by the states’ governors. The agreement notes that the three states are rich in coal deposits.

 

Formal proposals to land the clean-coal plant are due Thursday to the U.S. Energy Department.  Ohio is pitching sites in Meigs and Tuscarawas counties in eastern Ohio; Kentucky is proposing a site in Henderson County. Pennsylvania hasn’t yet proposed a site.

 

MORE: http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=53613

 

Ohio E.P.A Gives Green Light to Green Energy Center

 

 

The final air permit has been issued for the Green Energy Center next to SWACO’s Franklin County Landfill (3857 London Groveport Rd, Jackson Township, Ohio).  Construction on the facility should begin about six (6) weeks after local permitting approval.

 

SWACO’s landfill will provide the gas needed to produce methanol and CNG at the Center.    FirmGreen Fuels LLC of Newport Beach, California will operate the Green Energy Center and purchase the gas from SWACO.

 

The Center is expected to produce up to 20 million gallons per year of methanol, which would provide up to 100 million gallons per year of B20 biodiesel to the marketplace. Landfill gas will also be used to generate 1.6 MW from an engine and microturbines. Additionally, waste heat from the microturbines will provide space heat and hot water for the administrative office building and maintenance facilities of SWACO.

The annual reduction of greenhouse gases attributable to this project has the same effect as removing the emissions of nearly 12,000 cars from the road for a year, reducing oil consumption by more than 142,000 barrels per year, or planting 16,704 acres of trees.

SWACO Executive Director Mike Long is encouraged to see things getting underway.  “We have worked with the State of Ohio as well as the local communities to make sure everyone understands the value of this project.  It carries so much importance in these days of skyrocketing energy prices.  The Green Energy Center and similar projects certainly can be a major piece toward solving America’s energy puzzle.

“FGE is very excited about receiving regulatory approval to construct and operate our Green Energy Center© (GEC).  We appreciate the thorough review of the facility design by the EPA.” said Steve Wilburn, President and CEO of FGE. “Because our unique technology allows us to efficiently produce clean burning renewable fuels from local resources, the entire community benefits from reduced dependence on foreign oil, a cleaner environment, and lower fuel costs.”

 

Additional contact:  Rhonda Howard/Firm Green Fuels LLC 949-338-2025

 

John Remy

Director of Communications

SWACO

The Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio

614-801-6410 (office) 614-203-5966 (cell)

614-871-5103 (fax)

6220 Young Rd. Grove City, Oh 43123

www.swaco.org

From the 5/22/06 Mansfield News Journal:

 

 

PHOTO: Jay S. Herbert, 72, of 131 Pleasant Ave., says the city won't let he and nearby residents park on a vacant neighborhood lot, even though the land's owner gave them permission.  Dave Polcyn/News Journal

 

PHOTO (above)

 

PHOTO (below): The old football field in Mansfield's Chamber District before (above) and after (below) cleanup.  Submitted photos

 

Residents, city often at odds over future of downtown neighborhood

By Linda Martz

News Journal

 

MANSFIELD -- Jay S. Herbert has lived in the Chamber District for 23 years, and is uneasy about revitalization plans for the city's near west side.  Herbert, 72, of 131 Pleasant Ave., wonders if all the attention is in his best interest.  "We all, down here, are very suspect of everything that's going on," Herbert said. "I think they're surrounding those of us who own property, so they can use eminent domain ... so they can put up a convention center or whatever."

 

 

The Chamber District at a Glance

The Chamber District, which was named after the Mansfield-Richland Area Chamber of Commerce headquarters that anchors one corner, runs from Bowman and Mulberry streets, and from Third to Fifth streets.

 

It contains older housing. Some houses are well-cared for, some have deteriorated. The average value on the lower-end homes is $15,000 to $20,000, according to city Fair Housing director Don Mitchell.

 

More than 60 percent of the houses are rentals. Many buildings are vacant. Speculators snapped up some at foreclosures for $3,000 to $4,000 when a convention center was considered for the area, then "just walked away," Mitchell said.

 

During the last 18 months, the city demolished 17 deteriorated houses in the area. The Central City Economic Development Corp. has built several houses in scattered areas.

 

"Prior to last year there hadn't been a new house built (there) since 1940," Mitchell said.

 

News Journal staff report

 

More at http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060522/NEWS01/605220307/1002/rss01

 

Downtown Columbus Progress Report for May '06

 

http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/publications/ProgressReport2006-05.pdf

Make no mistake about it, sprawl is directly related to a transportation policy (both federal and state) that is dedicated to the development of more highways and little else.  The following stories are a series in the Columbus Dispatch that looks at the consequences. To be sure, economic factors are involved, but it is a highway-based policy that enables sprawl.

 

Belt-busting sprawl

Most people in central Ohio soon will live outside I-270

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Debbie Gebolys

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

One day this year, a family will unwittingly tip the population scales in central Ohio. The family in Upper Arlington or Columbus or Worthington or Bexley will pack up the moving van and head to a new home somewhere outside I-270. And for the first time, more people in the seven counties that make up central Ohio will live outside the Outerbelt than inside.

 

Read full story at:

http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/05/28/20060528-D1-00.html

And yet we continue to build more highways to "ease congestion" and yet it just perpetuates the problem of sprawl.

 

In Licking County, new highway will enable profound changes

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Tom Sheehan

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

For decades, the two-lane ribbon of pavement has taken motorists across pastoral farmland and past such western Licking County landmarks as Bob Lynd’s Fruit Farm.

 

But beginning in mid-June, the landscape along that 12-mile stretch of Rt. 161/37 will undergo a dramatic change. Construction is set to begin on a divided four-lane, limited-access highway to provide better transportation in the fast-growing stretch between Granville and the Franklin County line.

 

Read more at:

http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/05/28/20060528-D2-00.html

If gas prices goes through the roof, as many oil industry observers suspect they will, most of these exurban areas won't be worth the pavement they're built on just a few short years from now.

 

We need the farmland and we need it close by to reduce transportation costs. This is some of the best farmland in the world. And consider how much driving these land use patterns require for the most basic of tasks. Also, how many of these homeowners have better than a 2:1 equity to debt ratio? How many are at a 1:1 ratio??

 

Most of these folks are financially locking themselves into a lifestyle they probably can't afford now, and certainly won't in the future.

 

I suspect that this era of hyper sprawl will be known for years to come as the time when Americans simply lost their minds.

I'm glad the Dispatch is doing this series.

A lot of these people have what they think are valid reasons for moving away from problem areas, like Karl/Morse to the exurbs. This and other areas are brutally ugly, with housing stock that is in decline, with high crime rates and poor schools. Columbus and other cities have yet to find an answer to these problems. This is a key reason why things are the way they are.

 

At the same time, we are witnessing a profound change in some areas of the city. The Short North, German Village, Clintonville, Victorian Village and other areas are seeing new construction of businesses, condos and loft apartments. Downtown is seeing the rise of many new lofts or reconstruction of existing buildings. The Arena District is a booming area in what was a collection of parking lots and seedy buildings. So all is not lost.

 

On the whole, the sprawl issue is very serious. You can see the farmland disappearing before your eyes. I saw a story a while back that says we have gone from being a net exporter of food to a net importer. How can that be? Sprawl! It's eating up our best farmland!! The other cause in years to come might be a large-scale use of corn to make ethanol, a case of the need for more fuel competing with the need for food.

 

Back to the exurbs: These folks are not going to willingly change their perceptions or lifestyle. They firmly believe that the further they are from the urban areas of Columbus they are, the better they are. Problem is, they won't escape for long. Everyone else who has the same idea will make the same move, bringing overdevelopment with them.

 

I agree with KJP that as oil prices rise, this sort of lifestyle will become unsustainable, forcing many back into the cities, which are ill-equipped to handle them. Columbus has no rail transit, lousy schools and only 60% of the city's streets have sidewalks. A sudden influx like this would easily overwhelm the city's resources. Not mention what this would do to real estate values, which would explode, forcing out many current residents. Where would they go? Things could get ugly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some writers refer to developments in the townships as communities; I don't think that's an appropriate or accurate use of the word. The developments lack focus and identity that defines a community. They're nothing more than clusters of houses. The residents cloister themselves in their 3,000 square foot homes with their their home theater systems and their own spas and pools behind privacy fences on large lots, and only interact with other residents to try to stop builders from creating more subdivisions like theirs and bringing in more residents like them.

 

It's becoming more evident that suburban and exurban development will run out of gas in the not-so-distant future; the trend is already appearing in some metropolitan areas, and eventually it will reach flyover land. Younger people with good instincts for spotting redevelopment potential and with money to invest for the long term might do well to invest strategically in urban properties with depressed prices. They could find themselves sitting pretty when sprawl begins to implode.

But one of the things that must change is the kind of transportation policy that enables sprawl in the first place.  We have a state DOT that is funded largely through the state gasoline tax, creating a never ending cycle of more roads and then more money for more new roads.  Ya gotta stop feeding the beast if growth is to be controled in any decent fashion.  As long as the state constitution mandates all gas tax revenues must go to highways, nothing much will change.

 

I would favor a "fix-it-first" highway policy: no new roadways until the ones we have are fixed (including bridges, etc).  Then there has to be a fundamental change in how we fund transportation.  Either new revenue streams for rail, mass transit, bike & pedestrian ways, or we mount the effort to change Ohio's constitution so that gas tax revenues can be directed at more than just highways.  This law made some sense back in the 1950's when the Interstate Highway System was being built, but in today's context, it is not only an anachronism, it is choking us both economicallt and environmentally.

Noozer, I agree. The problem is that too many don't see this as much of a problem or that powerful interests (road builders, developers) like things just the way they are. The interesting thing to me is that the current system could collapse from its own weight. The highway trust fund is supposed to go broke in a few years and if it does, locals won't be able to make up the difference. Also, if higher gas prices leads to less driving (which we are now seeing), gas tax revenues will decline also. All of this means less money to maintain what we have, let alone build new roads.

 

Because of this, there will be the temptation to use such ideas as toll road franchising to fund yet more roads. The folly of this idea should be obvious: We can't maintain what we have now and a real peak oil scenario would make new roads useless. There is a real need for a choice, which we do not have. I think we will need to get out in front of the "toll franchise for more roads" crowd or get steamrolled.

 

The ideal as far as I am concerned would be to enforce a "fix-it-first" policy with regard to roads and stop building new roads or widening old ones. If there is to be any toll-road scheme, it must be a part of a statewide transportation reform package that adequately funds non-highway modes. However, I am afraid that unless there is widespread demand for change from the public, the temptation will be to do business as usual, which would be a huge mistake.

 

At the same time, I do think that within a few years that outcry will come as gas prices keep rising. In that scenario, the old gas tax for roads only concept might be swept aside. We might also see all Interstates converted to toll roads and the funds used for more public transportation. The implosion of the exurbs and some suburbs and the movement of their residents back to the cities will lead to a greater call for better transit and walkability.

 

Road builders need not despair however. There will be PLENTY for them to do from building new light rail lines, to new rail lines to rebuilding streets/sidewalk/bike paths for more efficient use. Likewise, developers might find it lucrative to redevelop old inefficiently laid out neighborhoods and revamp them to suit the demands of an energy-short society. Any suface parking lots will be viewed as a place for new housing with cars in an underground garage and even here, with better transit there won't be the current need for parking.

 

We both know the current way of doing things is unsustainable. The question is when will the general public start to realize this.

 

 

A few well placed letters to the editor of the Dispatch would be a good start.  You and KJP have both expressed thoughts that a wider public than what is on this website should read.

 

"And despite the fact that husband and wife are Realtors, they couldn’t find new.

 

"The only way you get new is to go to the ’burbs," Sauer said."

 

Because none of those condo projects downtown are new? The ignorance of these realtors is astounding. and why doe it HAVE to be new? What is there to do way outside of 270 anyway? Hang out in a strip mall?

 

Some writers refer to developments in the townships as communities; I don't think that's an appropriate or accurate use of the word. The developments lack focus and identity that defines a community.

 

Community without propinquity...this means the "communities" these people (actually most people) belong to are not geographical, but based on their churches, workplaces/proffessions, and kinship.  About as geographical as it gets is the communities formed by K-12 schools, and even this is not necessarily geographical if the kids are going to private schools.