Ah looks like we have more nonconstructive comments from UncleRando and Mr. Anderson, which is not surprising as they have jumped at others and at myself numerous times in this thread and elsewhere.

 

Can't take it that someone may actually find highways useful, along with mass transit and other forms of mobility? I am very much engaged in urban planning as it is a strong focus, along with urban design principles, mass transit, railroads and highways. I'm also focusing on rural mobility and character as part of my American Byways project.

 

So instead of presenting nonconstructive comments that add nothing of value to this thread, why not present your arguments and have a good and spirited debate? Sorry if us engineers or those who actually enjoy driving get in the way of that.

 

Uhhh...thats kinda out of left field!  All that I stated was that we don't need more engineers on transit boards!  I'm not saying get rid of all the engineers, just evenly distribute the boards out with a variety of transit experts.  Sure engineers serve and purpose and are good at what they do....so do urban planners and other specialists.

 

Maybe I offended you by stating that engineers often ignore the urban context, but hell if you prove that I or Mr. Anderson are the first people to feel that way...then I will be damn shocked!

"^^bahhh...we don't need any more engineers on transportation boards!!!  Give us an Urban Planner or someone who thinks beyond the realms of moving people the quickest way possible..someone who thinks with the urban context in mind!"

 

I know they often ignore concepts outside of their realm often times, such as urban design concepts and urban transit concepts, but urban planners can be the same way. There is also a group of urban planners who sometimes do not see that automobiles are a necessary component (for better or for worse) of any major city, and that some plans may not be the most feasible to other groups.

 

For instance, there are plans to re-create two-way traffic on many major throughfares in Lexington, KY. While that would not be a bad idea IMO as the same number of lanes would be preserved (in a general direction), there are several issues like turning radii and other issues that need to be solved before it is fully implented. Now for the two-sided debate on this, several groups including several engineering firms voiced their opinion against the idea because it would take more time for suburbanites to go home, increase congestion and slow traffic (but that is the point, for the latter two). But several urban planning groups, environmentalists and pro-transit groups supported it for those very reasons.

 

I'm not an engineer, and I am not a transit expert. I don't think many are on here. All we can do is point to references in newspapers, base our own conclusions on that, and gauge reactions.

BTW, this goes to those who post "silly" or sacarastic comments on this board:

 

Please add an emoticon or some other signal so that other users, such as myself (a newer user), and those that have not registered to post, will not be confused by the intent of your post. Rando brought it to my attention that some comments made were "silly" in nature, but if there is no indicator of that, then you could be confusing other readers and posters. I don't read every thread in the forum to know who makes these "silly" comments often to judge whether the next post is going to contain that or not, nor do I read through people's post histories, so out of courtesy, signaling to others about the intent of your post would be welcome. Thanks!

 

How's this?  :banger:

I'm not an engineer, and I am not a transit expert. I don't think many are on here. All we can do is point to references in newspapers, base our own conclusions on that, and gauge reactions.

 

quite the contrary we're all experts on this forum especially on matters like the subject of engineers vs planners - BTW if I were you I wouldn't base  my conclusions soley on what I read in the newspaper :weird:.

I am hearing (directly from NOACA) that the field is narrowed to six finalist. And it is 90% sure it will be an engineer... not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I'll take an architect over an engineer any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I want an architect because they tend to envision change and cause innovation. An engineer typically implements the change. If the engineer isn't instructed to design the change, then the status quo is more likely to remain.

 

And, for the past 60 years, traffic engineers have designed our cities. I think it's time to put that charge in the hands of those who regularly start each job looking at a blank sheet of paper.

 

Architects tend to underestimate costs and overestimate their own importance.

(A brash generalization, huh -- same broad stroke most of you all paint Engineer's with eh?)

An architect is totally wrong for the ODOT Director, if its focus is highways, transit, trucks freight, or anything. If the new directive for ODOT is transit, then the Director, even if a big bad engineer, will excecute that doctrine. I can post a whole list of links to engineering firms that specialize in rail and transit - Big and small ones. (Talking Civil Engineering here....)

 

More than just traffic engineers have designed cities in the past 60 years, there where urban planners, philatropists, politicians, developers and other autocrats. Your statement is shortsighted -- the only reason the urban/suburban fabric is what it is today is b/c of traffic engineers?

Many "evil" highway engineers actually move over to the rail side, and vice versa.

I'm not an engineer, and I am not a transit expert. I don't think many are on here. All we can do is point to references in newspapers, base our own conclusions on that, and gauge reactions.

 

quite the contrary we're all experts on this forum especially on matters like the subject of engineers vs planners - BTW if I were you I wouldn't base  my conclusions soley on what I read in the newspaper :weird:.

 

By all means, lets not forget television and talk radio. :roll:

Can we all stop painting with a broad brush here and stop assigning blame?  It accomplishes nothing.

We might as well forget about any sources in general since it can be refuted with other comments  :roll:

 

It's like the discussion that was on Wikipedia - what constituted a reliable source on a controversal topic. One user wanted to continually remove reliable newspaper and other media sources and slap in there forums, blogs and online "newspapers". For me, reliable sources equates to what you use and is allowed in college. Would you use a blog on your midterm if the blog did not have credible or reliable sources backing it?  :-P

More than just traffic engineers have designed cities in the past 60 years, there where urban planners, philatropists, politicians, developers and other autocrats. Your statement is shortsighted -- the only reason the urban/suburban fabric is what it is today is b/c of traffic engineers?

 

Yes, all those others you've mentioned have been involved, but after the transportation product has already been delivered. That's ass-backwards. So who designed the transportation product? And where has 95 percent of the transportation funding been allocated?

 

If you were to design or redesign a city, how would you do it? You'd probably want to look at the land use first, then design the optimal transportation system to serve it, correct? Instead, the process of the last 60 years has been for highway and traffic engineers to design and redesign the highway facility in a manner that moves the greatest volumes of vehicular traffic at the highest speeds possible and in the safest way. And damn the impact on local land use.

 

It's true that Ohio cities have developed land use plans countless times. Yet ODOT's activities have rarely, if ever, been conducted in a manner to support those plans. ODOT does what ODOT wants. It is the 800-pound gorilla. And the final product it delivers is ultimately shaped by its highway engineers.

 

How often has ODOT conducted an economic impact analysis of one of its highway investments? Once -- last year for the Inner Belt project in Cleveland (according to former ODOT Director Gordon Proctor). How often has ODOT sat in on a community's land use visioning process? Never, to my knowledge. And what is the single-most important determinant of the urban land use form? Transportation, my friend.

 

So, you tell me, who designs cities?

Again, tho...I say the highway is here to stay

 

We'll see what happens to oil

Hydrogen fuel cell cars?

Worth discussing on the peak oil thread.

More than just traffic engineers have designed cities in the past 60 years, there where urban planners, philantropists, politicians, developers and other autocrats. Your statement is shortsighted -- the only reason the urban/suburban fabric is what it is today is b/c of traffic engineers?

 

Yes, all those others you've mentioned have been involved, but after the transportation product has already been delivered. That's ass-backwards. So who designed the transportation product? And where has 95 percent of the transportation funding been allocated?

 

So the planners, politicians etc came in after the traffic engineers? "after the transportation product has already been delivered" Quite a few highway projects in the 60's were tied w/ Urban Renewal projects, for example. Did engineers develop zoning codes that promote large lots, large setbacks, widely dispersed land uses?

 

If you were to design or redesign a city, how would you do it? You'd probably want to look at the land use first, then design the optimal transportation system to serve it, correct? Instead, the process of the last 60 years has been for highway and traffic engineers to design and redesign the highway facility in a manner that moves the greatest volumes of vehicular traffic at the highest speeds possible and in the safest way. And damn the impact on local land use.

 

Sure, why would an engineer develop a highway that deliberately is congested? For land use, are you talking urban or suburban? Probably urban here. Yeah highways were rammed thru the poor parts, and tied top urban renewal --- so only the engineer's were involved in the route selection? No politicos, urban planners?

 

It's true that Ohio cities have developed land use plans countless times. Yet ODOT's activities have rarely, if ever, been conducted in a manner to support those plans. ODOT does what ODOT wants. It is the 800-pound gorilla. And the final product it delivers is ultimately shaped by its highway engineers.

 

How often has ODOT conducted an economic impact analysis of one of its highway investments? Once -- last year for the Inner Belt project in Cleveland (according to former ODOT Director Gordon Proctor). How often has ODOT sat in on a community's land use visioning process? Never, to my knowledge. And what is the single-most important determinant of the urban land use form? Transportation, my friend.

Personal Mobility

 

I'd say that developers have had a greater impact in land use plans that have no teeth. Can you cite an incidence that ODOT railroaded thru a land use plan (I'm curious, not calling you out).

And I believe that the Eastern Corridor here in Cincy has had an Economic Impact Analysis (Which is being challenged). Granted, folks love their cars, and any impact analysis will skew to highways.

 

So, you tell me, who designs cities?

Whoever has the money

So the planners, politicians etc came in after the traffic engineers?

 

Yes, they were put in the position of reacting to the plans of highway departments and the highway lobby (principally those that were then called the Highway Users Federation and the then-American Association of State Highway Officials). Both of these were creatures of General Motors but other auto manufacturers had a hand in them as well.

 

Quite a few highway projects in the 60's were tied w/ Urban Renewal projects, for example. Did engineers develop zoning codes that promote large lots, large setbacks, widely dispersed land uses?

 

Yes, the zoning codes were heavily infuenced by traffic engineers and the highway lobbying organizations I cited. General Motors set up a highway engineering school with the express purpose of turning out influential people to redesign cities. I'm sure you recall GM's City of Tomorrow, unveiled at the 1939 World's Fair in New York City. Executives at Ford, Studebaker and other firms were publicly quoted as saying "If we are to have full use of our cars, then cities have to be redesigned." By the time the 1960s rolled around, the disinvestment in our cities and the increased time/distance range of commuting travel provided by highways had already caused the decentralization and population losses in our cities. The whole metropolitan planning organization concept didn't come around nationwide until the 1960s, and was in reaction to the problems caused by overdepedence on highways. That a precise example of politicians and urban planners having to react to highway planning.

 

Sure, why would an engineer develop a highway that deliberately is congested?

 

It's time that we all realize that building more highways and adding more lanes to highways does not relieve congestion. More often it makes it worse by encouraging more VMTs and more sprawling land use patterns. It's a "hair of the dog that bit me" policy at its absolute worst. And that is the point I'm trying to make here. Highway engineers keep seeking to add capacity in the ever-elusive goal of trying to relieve congestion. All that ends up happening is the fostering of new communities at the urban fringe which replace and vacate those closer to the urban core.

 

For land use, are you talking urban or suburban? Probably urban here. Yeah highways were rammed thru the poor parts, and tied top urban renewal --- so only the engineer's were involved in the route selection? No politicos, urban planners?

 

Most principal highway routes were first surveyed and selected in the 1930s, before the urban renewal movement. Look at the initial highway route maps and their dates on Magyar's site. In the late 1930s, my aunt and uncle confronted someone walking through their farm in Ripley, NY. It was a surveyor for for the state highway department. After the war was over, the middle part of their farm was bought by the state and the New York State Thruway was cut through it. I'm telling that story to show you the timing of things.

 

I'd say that developers have had a greater impact in land use plans that have no teeth. Can you cite an incidence that ODOT railroaded thru a land use plan (I'm curious, not calling you out).

 

I don't think ODOT has ever acknowledged its land use role. They're like the boy who knocked his sister's cereal bowl off the breakfast table while his mom's back was turned, then pretended he knew nothing about the spilled milk.

 

And I believe that the Eastern Corridor here in Cincy has had an Economic Impact Analysis (Which is being challenged). Granted, folks love their cars, and any impact analysis will skew to highways.

 

People love their mobility, regardless of the vehicle. Are you going to tell me that you're more mobile with a car in New York, Paris, London, etc.? It all goes back to land use and transportation's role in supporting that land use. Blindly saying people love their cars is an excuse for not thinking about all the underlying issues of why 90 percent of all travel is by car. I encourage you to read Stephen Goddard's book "Getting there - the epic battle between road and rail in the American century."

 

 

Whoever has the money

 

Now you're getting warmer.

^Yes, the zoning codes were heavily infuenced by traffic engineers and the highway lobbying organizations I cited. General Motors set up a highway engineering school with the express purpose of turning out influential people to redesign cities

 

And not planners?...what about the push to spread folks out by the do-gooders (for lack of a better desc.) Its my understanding that folks thought density was unhealthly. LAnd was cheap, gas was cheap and cars wehere the thing of the future. Everybody would have their little house in the 'burbs with trees and grass all about. I think it was that the Auto guys saw that the demand for cars was from the populace, not them having to create the demand br wiping the cities clean. There was tons of congestion from cars even in the early days (1920's). The push out to the suburbs was already in full force before the 60's and at the mobility option of the day..Streetcar 'burbs..then the first Auto Burbs..etc. There is also more than just Engineers in the highway lobby.

 

Most MPO's were created b/c of a 1974 federal mandate all urbanized areas having a population of 50,000 or more designate a single agency to administer federal transportation funds.

 

^Most principal highway routes were first surveyed and selected in the 1930s, before the urban renewal movement

 

Yes, most of the outdated corridors were laid down then...however the vast majority of our auto travel today is on the Interstates, whose routes were first set down in the 1955 "yellow book"

http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/cincinnati.jpg

 

^Highway engineers keep seeking to add capacity in the ever-elusive goal of trying to relieve congestion

 

Along with policiticans (see Mitch Daniels) and developers/speculators

 

^People love their mobility, regardless of the vehicle. Are you going to tell me that you're more mobile with a car in New York, Paris, London, etc.?

 

That's why I typed Personal Mobility, when asked what is the single-most important determinant of the urban land use form? I'm sure you have heard of the walking city..etc when in referenced in the historical development pattern of the city.

 

All I am really taking issue with here is that you did blame all of our urban development patterns and issues on one branch of professionals, traffic engineers, and IMHO you are flat out wrong. Part of finding solutions is to have an understanding of how and why we got here, yeah traffic engineers played a role, along with a helluva lot of other folks (and some "non-people", e.g. FHA, etc)

So, you tell me, who designs cities?

Whoever has the money

 

Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live there.

 

Are cities even designed anymore? I guess pet mutations like New Albany are. But aren't older cities--REAL cities-- the product of blunt force trauma market forces--trade--industry--commerce--and ultimately, job creation? I mean, it's easy to see what forces created a city like Detroit or Chicago. But aren't most "new" cities just glorified subdivisions?

 

My point is, we no longer have a set of traditional market forces that respond to a rich set of needs. Either you can afford to live somewhere or you can't; you have a three car household and you live in New Albany, or you don't and you live in Franklinton.

 

The role of transit, as I see it, is to bridge the gaps--physical and otherwise--between the New Albanys and Franklintons. Who's going to do that? Whoever has money? A Les Wexner? I doubt it.

 

Granted, a Wexner will spend his cash downtown, but is it really in his personal business interests for the urbanites to come spend quality time in HIS neighborhood? In our enlightened opinion, yes. But I don't think the folks with money see it that way. The ball is in the court of regional planning and leadership--the people who live to serve us by our mandate--to make that happen.

 

In other words, our elected representatives' proxies on ODOT.

 

Wow, that's a ramble. Not my silliest, but somewhere remotely on topic. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

All I am really taking issue with here is that you did blame all of our urban development patterns and issues on one branch of professionals, traffic engineers, and IMHO you are flat out wrong. Part of finding solutions is to have an understanding of how and why we got here, yeah traffic engineers played a role, along with a helluva lot of other folks (and some "non-people", e.g. FHA, etc)

 

I'm afraid you've taken me too literally. When I say highway engineers vs. architects, I'm not talking exclusively about those who are employed as engineers or those as architects. My definition in this case of highway engineers are those whose first priority is the creation and preservation of a transportation system whose first priority is the movement of cars and trucks at ever-greater volumes and speeds. That includes all the legal and financial mechanisms that self-perpetuate the expansion of that highway system with little ability to legally reign it in when society becomes aware that there is an alternative to this madness.

 

I specifically am thinking of a graphic I have from one of my college textbooks which shows the self-perpetuating nature of the engineering aspect of the highway system. The graphic is all the more troubling when there is no easy to way to change that course except unless state constitutions are amended (including Ohio). When I find the graphic, I will post it in this thread. I hope it will explain where I'm coming from a little better.

 

I think the bigger problem in our debate is that we're coming at this from two totally different directions and backgrounds, and have yet to find a common "language" to begin to understand each other.

Ha ha...I have to agree with that. What's needed is someone with a background in planning (and a solid one).  What we have today is not a transportation system at all and that is precisely because we have not planned. Besides that, even if we have a planner with excellent credentials, that won't mean a popcorn fart if they have no vision.

 

You should talk with some guy I know called ragerunner :)

That post sounds rather familiar.

"^^bahhh...we don't need any more engineers on transportation boards!!!  Give us an Urban Planner or someone who thinks beyond the realms of moving people the quickest way possible..someone who thinks with the urban context in mind!"

 

I know they often ignore concepts outside of their realm often times, such as urban design concepts and urban transit concepts, but urban planners can be the same way. There is also a group of urban planners who sometimes do not see that automobiles are a necessary component (for better or for worse) of any major city, and that some plans may not be the most feasible to other groups.

 

For instance, there are plans to re-create two-way traffic on many major throughfares in Lexington, KY. While that would not be a bad idea IMO as the same number of lanes would be preserved (in a general direction), there are several issues like turning radii and other issues that need to be solved before it is fully implented. Now for the two-sided debate on this, several groups including several engineering firms voiced their opinion against the idea because it would take more time for suburbanites to go home, increase congestion and slow traffic (but that is the point, for the latter two). But several urban planning groups, environmentalists and pro-transit groups supported it for those very reasons.

 

I'm not an engineer, and I am not a transit expert. I don't think many are on here. All we can do is point to references in newspapers, base our own conclusions on that, and gauge reactions.

 

I wouldn't base my conclusions on newspapers solely.  Never.

Plus, I believe there should be *gasp* a balance of relevant professionals at ODOT.  Not all engineers, not all planners, and certainly not all architects -_-.  These professions working together however can strengthen the products they bring to transportation and cities.  At the same time they can try to counterbalance the weaknesses in the other professions.  I believe all of that in total is what Rando was refering to.

 

Please add an emoticon or some other signal so that other users, such as myself (a newer user), and those that have not registered to post, will not be confused by the intent of your post. Rando brought it to my attention that some comments made were "silly" in nature, but if there is no indicator of that, then you could be confusing other readers and posters. I don't read every thread in the forum to know who makes these "silly" comments often to judge whether the next post is going to contain that or not, nor do I read through people's post histories, so out of courtesy, signaling to others about the intent of your post would be welcome. Thanks!

 

Its thanks to you and a couple of other folks I add the following. XP

 

[Pre-recorded Message from Progamer reads:] This post is not an attack or flame on anyone and is not coming from the center of any emotion, especially anger.  Please do not fly off the handle.  Kthanksbye.

OK, here's the graphic I mentioned earlier. It's called the "Black Hole Theory of Highway Investment" and it's from a college textbook of mine "The Geography of Urban Transportation" from 21 years ago. It was theory then. It's fact now.

 

 

Now, urban planners and politicians can map out a pedestrian-friendly or transit-friendly plan for a city until they are blue in the face, and a select few portions of it might even get built. But when 95 percent (or more) of Ohio's transportation funding goes to highways, it's a virtual certainty that those land use plans won't be realized (or, at best, won't reach their full potential). More likely, the urban form that will ultimately get built is the one that's dependent on the car because that's where the money is -- and there isn't much that anyone can do about it short of amending Ohio's constitution.

 

Mr Sparkle will probably cite a few examples of dense, walkable, non-highway dependent communities that are doing OK or maybe even succeeding. That is the exception in Ohio. And it will continue to be that way until the state's constitution is amended to allow the public to vote on how their gas taxes are spent. Instead, we vote exclusively for more highways every time we pump gas into our cars, whether we want to or not. What comes out the other end is for the highway engineer to design. To suggest otherwise is wholly ignorant of the legal restrictions placed on Ohio's gas tax and the codependency of transportation modes to their specific, supportive urban forms.

 

I feel most sorry for the 10-20 percent of urban households which never even get to cast a vote at the gas pump simply because they don't own cars. Instead, they must rely on scraps from the mere $16 million Ohio spends on public transportation. If more understood these issues, I fear there would be a citizen revolution. The problem is too many Ohioans don't question that the healthy community they are living in has a lifespan of less than 100 years under Ohio's current transportation policy. Eventually, it's going to be made redundant by the newer community on the bypass of the bypass farther out from the city. That's the Black Hole Theory of Highway Investment.

 

Too bad Americans have gotten soft -- or blind. We're like fish who don't even see or question the water we're swimming in. Until people take back control of the gas tax, our urban planners and local elected officials will have far less power than highway engineers (including highway builders, etc) in controlling the fate of their communities.

 

And that's the facts of life in Ohio.

^ You should write for a newspaper or somethin'.

 

 

 

The original intent of Pres. Eisenhower was to build the Interstates like the Autobahn: city-to-city, to a ring road, but not penetrate the city centers. Europeans have superhighways, but they did not rip the hearts out of their cities to build them. The road lobby did an end-run around Pres. Eisenhower and inserted a provision in the Interstate highway act that called for building into the hearts of the cities.

 

 

Actually, the cities themselves a strong hand in this.  They thought if the highways came into the city centers, it would be easier for suburbanites to get to downtown shopping districts.  It wasn't long, however, before the suburban shopping mall was invented...

 

KJP, that should be a spiral outward.

"Urban sprawl is encouraged"

 

I would question this in the context of the chicken-and-the-egg item I posted earlier. There are many instances, at least around here, where houses and subdivisions are built on narrow two-lane roads, and then the road out to them is widened after many accidents and congestion. There is no developer impact fee here; Louisville's surrounding counties may be implementing them soon (if not already) after sprawling messes are causing chokeholds on many farm-to-market roads. They would force developers to pay to upgrade the roads in front of their properties to modern standards.

 

But I have also seen it vice-versa. Man-o'-War Boulevard is southern ring-road around Lexington, constructed as a four-lane urban arterial with sidewalks (useless). It is today choked with traffic, surrounded by the subdivisions that line most of its route built after each segment was completed. At the time of its construction, there wasn't many subdivisions in the way, many sticking close to New Circle Road but slowly moving southward. The new Man-o'-War only hastened the move south, and not east, north or west of the city.

 

But there is another reason: The urban service boundary favored subdivisions to the south. To the north, west and east, there is prime bluegrass farmland with rich limestone soils that support high-quality grasses for the horses. The south was mainly tobacco fields and was considered "replaceable" lands. But tobacco farming bottomed out and many did not convert over into other uses (up until just recently - wineries and other agricultural purposes, including new horse farms), and they proceeded to sell out at a rapid rate.

 

It's a messy situation that can be debated into infinity.

KJP, I would agree with you whole heartadly that we should let the public decide how the gas tax is spent..but even at this point in time would probably still favor highways, but the sands are shifting. Don't forget that the vast majority of the gas tax is a federal gas tax, not controlled by Ohio.

 

Transportation projects may encourage sprawl, but definatley not the sole cause (Chicken and the egg as Seicer mentions just up thread); an example I might cite is that Butler County and Warren County here (Mason-West Chester etc) spread out a lot in the late 80's early 90's, before Union Centre Blvd, and the widening's of I-71 and I-75. For quite a while Ohio built no new facilities or widened anything, but the sprawl still happened.

 

One of the big things we have to fix is stopping the communities from competing for growth. Its always the next township out to say "hey we can have that growth like XX township just to our south. Some unified planning might help, and compensation for townships that are still rural in nature, so that they are not pressured to grow.

Siecer, try this as an experiment sometime....

 

Drive out to what was the urban fringe of metro Louisville in about 1980. Look at your watch. Then get on the interstate or other limited-access highway and drive from there to downtown Louisville. Look at your watch and record the time. Let's say it's 20 minutes.

 

Next, get on an old arterial street and drive out from downtown. When 20 minutes (or whatever the time is) has elapsed, stop driving. Chances are, you've probably arrived at what was the urban fringe in 1950 or so. You might even travel farther than the 1950s urban fringe if that arterial you've chosen goes through what is now a depressed, depopulated area.

 

OK, let's try part two of the experiment. Drive to an "edge city" that's a large, post-1980 employment area. I don't know what that is in metro Louisville, but in Greater Cleveland, it's Mentor, Beachwood or Independence or Westlake.

 

"Try" to find the geographic center of that edge city. Then, get on an interstate that feeds the edge city and drive in a direction opposite from Downtown Louisville until you reach the present-day urban fringe of metro Louisville. How many miles are you from the 1950-urban fringe of Louisville? Now, can you see yourself in 1950 driving to work every weekday in downtown Louisville from that location via an arterial?

 

Probably not.

 

This is why I don't see a chicken-and-egg situation when it comes to debating whether highways (plus its cousins of subsidized wholesale oil prices, the lack highway-use pricing, highway-supportive zoning practices, etc) are the dominant force motivating urban sprawl outward beyond the 1950s city?

U.S. gasoline tax: 18.4 cents/gallon

Ohio gasoline tax: 28 cents/gallon

 

Total tax per gallon paid in Ohio is 46.4 cents

Drive out to what was the urban fringe of metro Louisville in about 1980. Look at your watch. Then get on the interstate or other limited-access highway and drive from there to downtown Louisville. Look at your watch and record the time. Let's say it's 20 minutes.

 

Next, get on an old arterial street and drive out from downtown. When 20 minutes (or whatever the time is) has elapsed, stop driving. Chances are, you've probably arrived at what was the urban fringe in 1950 or so. You might even travel farther than the 1950s urban fringe if that arterial you've chosen goes through what is now a depressed, depopulated area.

 

OK, let's try part two of the experiment. Drive to an "edge city" that's a large, post-1980 employment area. I don't know what that is in metro Louisville, but in Greater Cleveland, it's Mentor, Beachwood or Independence or Westlake.

 

"Try" to find the geographic center of that edge city. Then, get on an interstate that feeds the edge city and drive in a direction opposite from Downtown Louisville until you reach the present-day urban fringe of metro Louisville. How many miles are you from the 1950-urban fringe of Louisville? Now, can you see yourself in 1950 driving to work every weekday in downtown Louisville from that location via an arterial?

 

Probably not.

 

This is why I don't see a chicken-and-egg situation when it comes to debating whether highways (plus its cousins of subsidized wholesale oil prices, the lack highway-use pricing, highway-supportive zoning practices, etc) are the dominant force motivating urban sprawl outward beyond the 1950s city?

 

In the case of Louisville, some sprawl occured at the hand of interstate highways which enabled people to live further from the city in the "countryside", leapfrogging development along older, arterial highways. Infill sprawl later filled in the blanks.

 

In the case of Lexington, there were no interstates where growth spurted out. An urban service boundary pretty much confined all development in a very dense region. Drive into Lexington on all sides and it's nothing but farmlands all around until you get smack-dab into the city. The interchanges around it have _no_ services. Quite unique really, as in other cities with no such boundaries, there would be subdivisions lining the interchanges, along with interstate-related businesses (e.g. gas stations). All growth occurred within the urban service boundary in Fayette County and there wasn't much "leapfrogging" like in Louisville because of the way the land is regulated.

 

If you want to really stop sprawl or at least contain it, cities should install urban and rural service boundaries as what Lexington did. There are drawbacks to this, however. Land and home prices in the city are considerably higher than other surrounding counties and cities, which has led to unchecked development in rural Garrard, Woodford and Jessamine county. Jessamine and Garrard have very lax zoning in the county. Others, like Clark, Bath and Scott, have development boundaries which permits such 'sprawl' close to the city.

 

I think now it would be comparing apples to oranges. Lexington is unique in that it has a development boundary which pretty much limits _all_ development outside of agriculture from the rural service zones. Hamilton and the counties to the north of it certainly do not as evidenced by all the sprawling messes.

I picked Louisville because I thought you lived there. My experiment works better in Ohio's metros.

Thanks,(Inre Ohio and Fed gas tax rates)

I shoulda known that ;-)

Seems a bit strange that Gov. Strickland would choose a chief of staff at ODOT before choosing a director. Alas, it seems as though the administration is determined to place a greater emphasis on economic development since the soon to be chief of staff at ODOT was Mayor Coleman's senior adviser on regional affairs and economic development.

 

 

Strickland picks 3 for state posts, including Coleman adviser

By Mark Niquette

The Columbus Dispatch

Thursday, February 1, 2007

 

Gov. Ted Strickland tapped another member of Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman's administration, the Montgomery County treasurer and a former state representative for three state appointments today.

 

Strickland named Steve Campbell, Coleman's senior adviser on regional affairs, as the chief of staff for the Ohio Department of Transportation -- even as a search for the ODOT director continues.

 

........

Hard to figure for sure, but consider that this may be the Administration's way of preventing another fiefdom such as Gordon Proctor created among his band of district directors and immediate staff.  Could be a way to send a message to ODOT management that they are answerable to the Governor first.

Very good news!  Anyone related to the Coleman administration has to have had some of the pro-urban agenda rub off on him.  It's certainly good news for the funding of the 70/71 caps!

 

Also, I agree with Noozer's take.  Remove nepotism from the equation by building the organization from the bottom up with people who share the same vision, rather than letting the director nominate all of his cronies.

Has there been any recent news on the Interstate 70-71 reconstruction in downtown Columbus? This would make a nice "Fort Washington Way"-esque project...

Has there been any recent news on the Interstate 70-71 reconstruction in downtown Columbus? This would make a nice "Fort Washington Way"-esque project...

Here's the project website...

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/7071study/

 

Discussion Thread here on Urban Ohio...

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2924.0

 

The short of it...ODOT didn't want to fund any caps...the public basically demanded it at public meetings...ODOT came back with $37 million for 2-3 caps and vertical retaining walls...the city wants 11 caps...ODOT made some conceptual renderings...MORPC just announced some funding...the ball is in the city's court to find more money...

Well if anything, supports for future caps should be installed similar to Fort Washington Way. Even if two to three caps were constructed, it would leave the idea open for more.

There aren't caps on Ft. Washington Way

^when the reconfigured FWW, they drove pillings so it will be possible to cap it in the future.

DOT 15-07

Contact: Brian Turmail, Tel.: (202) 366-4570

Monday, February 5, 2007

 

Bush Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation Budget Request of $67 Billion to Finance Vital Construction, Congestion and Safety Programs, Provide Framework for Reforming Aviation System for Fiscal Year 2008

The Bush Administration is requesting $67 billion for 2008 to finance key transportation construction, congestion relief and safety programs, and to provide the framework for reforming the aviation system, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced today.

 

“Our goal is to deliver a transportation system that frees all of us to make daily decisions confident we can reach our destinations safely, without worrying about how we will get there, or if we can make it on time,” Secretary Peters said.

 

The Secretary noted that the budget request provides a framework for reforming the aviation system by tying what users pay to the costs of providing air traffic control and other services. She added that the request also includes $175 million for a 21st Century satellite navigation system to replace older air traffic control equipment and $900 million in additional air traffic control system upgrades.

 

“Our plan puts incentives in place that will make the system more efficient as well as more responsive to the needs of the aviation community,” Secretary Peters said. “This is critical if we are to deploy the state-of-the-art technology that can safely handle the dramatic increases in the number and type of aircraft using our skies.”

 

The Administration is seeking a record $42 billion for highway construction and safety programs, the Secretary said. The FY 2008 budget request proposes overall transportation safety funding of $20.3 billion. This request will fund the aviation and surface transportation safety programs and initiatives. Included in the amount are programs and activities to target areas like motorcycle crashes and drunk driving.

 

The 2008 budget also requests $175 million to cut traffic congestion by developing commuter traffic information systems, accelerating construction along trade and travel corridors and helping metropolitan areas test new solutions. The budget request includes $1.3 billion for commuter rail and transit projects for urban areas and $100 million for transit projects in smaller towns and rural areas, the Secretary added.

In announcing the budget request, Secretary Peters invited Congress to work with the Department on solutions to financing and managing the nation’s transportation network, noting that the government is spending from the Highway Trust Fund at a rate that is faster than the growth in revenue in part because of the explosive growth in earmarks.

 

“Freedom is at the core of our American values, but we lose a little more freedom each time we venture into traffic,” the Secretary said. “This budget proposal takes a big step in helping us get our freedom back.”

 

###

 

The Secretary's speech can be found at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2007/peters020507.htm.

I saw that, that is pretty good but the funding needs to be wholly larger. $1.3 billion for commuter rail and transit? How much do we spend on widening the same roads in urbanized areas?

^Enough to add toll roads to the city streets.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=11877.msg160296#msg160296

Governor Ted Strickland announced today that James Beasley, P.E., P.S., Brown County Engineer will be the new ODOT Director beginning March 5, 2007.  Mr. Beasley served as the ODOT Coordinator for Governor Strickland.

 

Please join with me in welcoming Mr. Beasley to the Ohio Department of Transportation.   

 

 

 

Keith C. Swearingen, P.E. P.S.

Acting Director

Ohio Department of Transportation

So what do we know about this guy, other than he was the lead person on Strickland's ODOT transition team?

 

OK, Southwest Ohioans, chime in!

Well...I've searched but couldn't find any bios on Mr. Beasley.  The selection seems a little rural for my taste.  I think my ideal candidate would've been from out of state.

My initial reaction is "Oh boy...another highway engineeer from a rural county. Just what we need."

 

Is THIS the best we can do? :?

I have NEVER heard of this guy before...hopefully he is a good guy, but like BuckeyeB...I had the same initial reaction.

We'll just have to see what happens.

2.12.07 - Strickland Appoints Director of Ohio Department of Transportation

 

Columbus, Ohio – Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Transition Chair Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman announced today the appointment of Brown County Engineer James Beasley, P.E., P.S, as the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation.

 

“Jim understands that an efficient and reliable transportation network contributes to and enhances economic growth,” Strickland said. “I am confident that he will not only be a tremendous leader in developing and maintaining safe roads for Ohioans, but will guide the department in a way that helps create jobs.”

 

“I’ve known Jim for more than 30 years,” Strickland said. “And I know – without a doubt – that he has the character and integrity needed to manage this crucial department.

 

Beasley will begin his duties March 5. His appointment marks Strickland’s 17th cabinet appointment.

 

“ODOT is critical to Ohio's future, connecting our cities, counties, businesses and citizens to the world, and we've found someone who understands this complex system and can be a great team player as Governor Strickland's cabinet gets working to turn around Ohio,” Mayor Coleman said.

 

James Beasley, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation

 

James Beasley, 57, has served as Brown County Engineer since 1980. In this role, Beasley has supervised all public improvements and maintenance of the county’s highway system, including all safety projects, and the design, construction and maintenance of bridges, roads and culverts.

 

Prior to becoming Brown County Engineer, Beasley worked as the county’s deputy engineer from 1975-1979. He served as the sole proprietor for Beasley Engineer and Surveying from 1975-1984 and worked for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources from 1973-1975.

 

Beasley graduated from Ohio State University in 1972 with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and earned his master’s degree in hydraulic and hydrologic engineering from Ohio State University in 1973.

 

Beasley has served two separate terms as vice chair and chair of the District 15 Ohio Public Works Committee. He has been awarded a life membership by the Township Trustees Association of Brown County and has received an Award of Merit for Outstanding Accomplishments in Resource Conservation from the Brown County Soil and Water Conservation District. In 2000, he was recognized by ODOT for Covered Bridge Preservation.

 

Beasley resides on a farm outside Georgetown with his wife, Alta.

 

“I am eager to work with our state’s various regions and cities to ensure that all Ohioans have access to a quality, statewide transportation system,” Beasley said. “This cooperation is absolutely necessary to ensure that economic development and job creation in every part of the state remain key priorities of the Ohio Department of Transportation.”

 

As the director of ODOT, Beasley will earn an annual salary of $124,758, the same amount as the previous director.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation oversees Ohio’s $2.1 billion annual transportation program. The department is responsible for designing, building and maintaining Ohio’s nearly 20,000 miles of state, U.S. and interstate highways. Ohio has the second largest inventory of bridges, the fourth largest interstate highway system and the 10th largest highway system in the nation. ODOT also helps coordinate and develop Ohio’s public transportation and aviation programs. These include 56 public transit systems and nearly 200 public airports.

 

This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Ohio Senate.

--0--

Beasley did work for the Ohio Dept of Natural Resources a long while ago.  Let us hope that reflects some "green" roots.