The address shared here, originally presented in Fresno in 1996, provides a solid introduction to his and the organization's thinking. With Stephanie Meeks, who spent 18 years at the The Nature Conservancy, named as his replacement, here's hoping that thinking doesn't change.
MOE: GROWING SMARTER: Fighting Sprawl and Restoring Community in America
Why is an organization like the National Trust for Historic Preservation so concerned about sprawl? If that question occurs to you, it could be that the preservation movement isn't what you think it is.
Of course we're concerned about sprawl because it devastates older cities and towns--and increasingly, older suburbs--where historic buildings and neighborhoods are concentrated. Sprawl has drained the life out of thousands of traditional downtowns and inner-city neighborhoods, and we've learned that we can't hope to revitalize these communities without doing something to control the sprawl that keeps pushing further and further out from the center.
But our concern goes beyond that, because preservation today is about more than bricks and mortar. We're convinced--and there's a growing body of grim evidence to support us--that sprawl is having a devastating effect on our quality of life, that it is corroding the very sense of community that helps bind us together as a people and as a nation. Preservation is in the business of saving special places and the quality of life they support, and sprawl destroys both.
50 comments:
Thanks for the post Jeff.
Sprawl affects more than just preservation. While we may disagree on how to address the concerns, there is no doubt that new greenfield construction affects virtually every quality of life factor in not only the historic neighborhoods but also in the older, established suburbs. Many investments in one part of the community siphon jobs, tax revenues, talent and attention from somewhere else in the community. A new street or sewer built far from the city often causes businesses, capital and/or residents to leave the city. This flight causes the city to lose tax revenue while not relieving the city of maintenance costs with its existing streets and sewers. The result is underutilized resources within the city and often long term, hidden costs outside of the city. That much is clear. The question is what, if anything, can or should be done about it. Could more coordination between New Albany and Floyd Co. governments play a positive role?
More coordination has to occur, but city/county isn't enough: it has to be city, county, state, and federal. Planning, zoning, transportation, tax code, and other financial policies all currently encourage and subsidize sprawl and have done so for years. Indiana's recent property tax caps encourage sprawl.
Back to Moe:
People who insist that sprawl is merely the natural product of marketplace forces at work--and there are some people who do say so--fail to recognize that the game isn't being played on a level field. The fact is that government at every level is riddled with policies that mandate, encourage or even subsidize sprawl.
Federal policy in many areas--housing and lending, for instance--is riddled with provisions that encourage sprawl, but transportation policy is perhaps the biggest offender. Transportation policy should be based on principles that reward rational planning and efficiency. Instead, it is rooted in principles that reward sprawl.
In the decades since the end of World War II, "transportation" has become practically synonymous with "car." Today's automobiles may be smaller and less chrome-laden than they were thirty or forty years ago, but what they've lost in bulk they've made up for in sheer numbers and in their insatiable demand for space. But the real villain is not the automobile--or not the automobile alone, at any rate. As Jessica Mathews wrote in the Washington Post , "Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We seem wedded to the automobile because policy after government policy...encourages us to be." Since the 1950s, auto-centric transportation policies at every level--federal, state and local--have effectively destroyed transportation choices for Americans.
To cite one example, these policies have wiped out walkable older communities while preventing the creation of new ones. By mandating inordinate amounts of parking and unreasonable setback requirements and by prohibiting mixed uses, most current zoning laws make it impossible--even illegal--to create the sort of compact walkable environment that attracts us to older neighborhoods and historic communities all over the world. These codes are a major reason for America's auto-dependence.
Since locals have more ability to affect local policies (versus state or federal policies), I'm curious to hear specific ideas for what could happen at the city or county level. The Bridges Project has been discussed in a fair amount of detail. What about local tax, sewers, zoning, planning, housing or transportation policies? Could these be tweaked to address the negative effects of sprawl?
New Albany can do some things unilaterally. The more effective New Albany is in addressing crime, blight, code enforcement, parks, infrastructure, business incentives, etc., the more attractive New Albany will be for residents and businesses. Residents and businesses which move here are residents and businesses not moving to cornfields.
I'm less familiar with county policies. Jeff, do you have specific ideas in mind?
While some downtown changes (code enforcement, two-way streets) can certainly be made and should, it makes more sense overall (and is cheaper) to stop the subsidization of exurban development than it does to incentivise it in the urban core. Smaller downtown, inner-ring incentives in the face of such massive exurban subsidy just creates an endless subsidy cycle that will keep areas in and near the urban core at a disadvantage over the long-term even though they represent the most bang for the buck.
The message should be made clear: If developers decide to build literally thousands of new homes in the exurb, the rest of us will not pick up the tab for all the wanted "improvements" to support it.
Did you create way too much traffic by placing hundreds of new residences on a road designed for farmers? That's your fault, not ours.
Expect the rest of us to pay for the cost of expanding your interstate exit because you've overloaded it, too? You knew what was there when you built or moved. Not going to happen. Our money and any political clout with KIPDA is going towards supporting more efficient and sustainable transportation projects like transit.
Are the schools out there overcrowded because you decided to abandon the schools we all already collectively built? Same answer.
Do you expect everyone to support a sewer system because you've overloaded the land's capacity to handle your waste? Should've thought of that before you did it.
Just because some people knowingly decided to move miles and miles away from nearly all preexisting retail, they have no right to expect the rest of us to grant land use variances to build strip malls on agricultural or low density residential property. Moving away was their choice. If easy retail access is important to you, move back.
There are only a few public safety personnel assigned out there. Hope that's enough to cover any trouble the additional thousands might have because we're not paying for any more.
The list goes on and on.
Not sure that it is quite that black and white.
Your street caves in because the 100 year old sewer underneath it was not properly maintained--well don't expect me to pay for it. You knew it was old when you moved there.
Not trying to start a fight. I think most everyone is aware that I agree with the vast majority of
this.
Which makes more sense? Maintaining the investment we made a hundred years ago, have already paid for five times over, and that could easily be maximized as a resource OR building a complete new one and then not having the money to maintain either?
This is not a case of us being overwhelmed by a population explosion. This is a case of roughly the same number of people being made responsible for an ever increasing amount of infrastructure.
For the most part, I have no beef with people living wherever they wish. They should, however, be prepared to bear the true cost of their choices. The system we have now exists largely as an exurban developer subsidy program. They profit, we pay.
And, besides, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't maintain county infrastructure any more or less than we'd maintain city infrastructure. What I'm advocating is that we stop greatly expanding it, which is precisely what we've been doing in this region for decades.
Jeff, what does the county do (if anything) to subsidize sprawl?
One tool other cities have tried is the increase impact fees associated with building permits. The fees can be set sufficiently high to internalize the externalities (although I think you'd have to hire a few economists to calculate a defensible externality number for Floyd County permits). If the county builds rural roads with funds obtained disproportionately from urban taxpayers, that's a problem whose solution lies in Indianapolis, not locally. I don’t expect the county to write New Albany a check for the subsidy it received from the state.
What other tools might locals have? Are there tools precise enough and effective enough to limit sprawl's negative effects without unduly limiting growth opportunities? My gut tells me they’re out there but I don't know what they are.
Until I can articulate and defend a good policy, I have a hard time being too upset that local leaders have not implemented a good policy.
Dan,
You're making it a lot more complicated than it is. The county doesn't need to hire multiple consultants, attorneys, accountants, engineers, etc., and develop reams of legalese. Transportation policy can be summed up in two words: Stop it.
While a small amount of state transportation money largely aimed at maintenance is automatically distributed to the counties, the state otherwise doesn't just randomly distribute substantial funds to Floyd County, regardless of their source.
County officials have to determine what they want to build, advocate for those projects with KIPDA to get them approved and added to the regional transportation plan, and then typically seek additional funding (local, state, federal) to make them happen.
In terms of sprawl-inducing road expansion, just stop doing that. Stopping is simple, free, doesn't create any long term costs, and would actually aid in freeing up some funds to help with the maintenance of what's already there.
For every developer that's happy millions were spent to expand a given road, there's a long time resident who's angry that their road, full of potholes, hasn't been touched in a long time even though the cost of simply resurfacing would be much less.
Instead, the county has supported the expansion of some existing roads (the "need" for which is almost always created by their own poor planning and resultant sprawl) and the creation of new ones for which taxpayers will soon become responsible even though the tax base is already stretched too thin to maintain existing ones.
And, again, all that isn't being done to support a substantial influx of new residents and jobs (and therefore additional county revenue) but rather largely in support of the same number of people moving from one part of the county to the other or perhaps swapping a few residents with surrounding counties and Louisville. That is not growth in the first place.
They are greatly increasing both their current and long term costs while not generating much new revenue. The school system has behaved similarly.
Much the same "stop it" can be said of many of the land use changes as well. If a piece of land is zoned agricultural, don't change it. If it's zoned low density residential, i.e., no major subdivision allowed, don't change it. If they have already changed it, change it back to the extent possible. If there's not a sewer system, don't spend tens or hundreds of millions building one.
The shift has much more to do with attitude and intent than the passage of new laws Much like New Albany, simply following the ones already in place would be of substantial help.
If we ever get to the point at which we've legitimately maximized the already developed spaces in the county, we'll need to revisit and direct that real growth as it becomes necessary. But, we're a long way from that and have, in fact, been going in the opposite direction for a long time.
I agree that most of the road expansion is counterproductive. Interestingly enough, some traffic studies have shown that extra lanes increase congestion instead of improve it. Decreasing average rush hour commute distance from 25 miles to 15 miles (by people living closer to work) would result in cfar fewer cars on the roads at peak demand and free up more road capacity than we could build over the next generation.
That being said, there are plenty of cornfields for sale next to existing Floyd Co. roads. People want to live in those cornfields and they'll buy a house in that cornfield before any improvements are made to the little adjacent road.
A pre-crash study by the Urban Land Institute compared the profitability of US "greenfield" developers with the profitability of urban infill developers. Both had approximately a 20% ROE. The study confirmed that developers can make as much money in the cities. We've seen this locally with the likes of Bill Weyland and Steve Resch.
However, while the percentage of new units created nationwide has shifted away from greenfields and towards urban cores, in absolute terms, most new construction still occurs far away from cities. Our region is hardly a counterexample.
Southern Indiana developers are by nature a culturally conservative bunch. Even the most sophisticated among them, very successful developers who create high quality suburban products, are mostly unaware of urban issues and development opportunities. But culture is not the only issue.
The absolute smallest subdivision development loan I've ever closed over $1 million. Real estate involves high leverage and high stakes. Developers have a lot to lose if their developments fail. A key issue is that most developers are unwilling to bet millions of dollars on something untried locally. Developers build only what has sold quickly in the past; they don't bet their kids' college funds on something that's unproven.
Let's look at this in the context of Scribner Phase II. First, note it's an out of town developer. He is modeling the project on something he has lived with in his adopted home of Washington DC, not his original home of New Albany. Second, I believe there's opportunity for Bobo's project to shift opinions for local developers if it's successful. It could be a very influential project with both local developers and local lenders. A decade plus ago, Louisville opinions of downtown development were so dismal, Bill Weyland had to go to St. Louis to get funding for Glassworks; no local banker would lend a penny on the deal. Its overwhelming success changed everything for downtown Louisville. That may have slightly slowed Oldham and Shelby Co. greenfield construction but it certainly didn’t stop it.
Urban infill is just more complicated. Cornfields are easy. Often it takes longer to get permits and zoning approval. There are more neighbors to object. In New Albany, one of the biggest problems is that no matter where to build, you’re not far from slum properties. The slum properties suppress property values for everything around them. Developers know this so they focus their energies where they can command a higher price for the same amount of effort.
Unban infill also often includes a dizzying array of income tax credits, property tax abatements, subsidized loan terms and the occasional government grant. All of these programs come with tremendous red tape that turn developers from hammer swingers into pencil pushers. One opportunity most cities miss is having sufficient redevelopment staff to court developers, “sell” the benefits of these archaic programs, and assist developers with the red tape.
Bottom line is that developers just aren’t going to decide to stop building where it’s cheap and easy and proven. Financial carrots and sticks matters, but so do government cheerleading, guidance and leadership. Having a few good local examples of profitable infill projects matter too. Municipalities can also help assembly large tracks of urban land. Buying 50 acres in Greenville requires one seller and one contract. Buying 5 acres in New Albany might involve 20 sellers and 20 contracts. Most developers just don’t want to fool with this when there’s an easier alternative.
With the real estate crash, suburban developers are taking a harder hit than urban developers. In Louisville in 2009, this translated into an approximate 9% price decline for exurban new construction while the existing Highlands homes showed price gains of approximately 7%. That’s a price differential we have not seen in 100 years. It will be interesting how this, coupled with an inevitable post-recovery rise in gas prices, will affect developers’ views of the next cornfield. Since most local developers are currently in or near bankruptcy, it’ll also be interesting to see who the individual developers are in the next real estate boom five to ten years from now.
And then there's the politics. If a better policy were possible, who would see that it's implimented? This except from a recent Urbanophil post is about Cleveland but it could apply equally to Southern Indiana and Louisville. Real estate and construction is more influential locally than ever before.
“Cleveland’s leadership has no apparent theory of change. Overwhelmingly, the strategy is now driven by individual projects. These projects, pushed by the real estate interests that dominate the board of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, confuse real estate development with economic development. This leads to the ‘Big Thing Theory’ of economic development: Prosperity results from building one more big thing.“
- Ed Morrison, “Cleveland: Reconstructing the Comeback“
Ed Morrison wrote the above about Cleveland, but he could have been describing any number of other cities. Why is it that so many cities have turned to large real estate projects to attempt to restart growth, turning away from strategies that previously made them successful?
The answer possibly lies in structural economic changes resulting from the nationalization and globalization of industry. Up until the 1990’s, many businesses, such as retailing, utilities, some manufacturing, and especially banking operated on a regional or local basis. The meant that the civic leadership of a community was heavily dominated by businessmen, again, especially bankers, whose success was dependent on the overall macroeconomic health of the particular city or region they were located in.
But with banking deregulation, we saw large numbers of hometown banks merged out of existence. Industry after industry was subjected to national or international level roll-ups as changes in the economy and regulatory environment gave increasing returns to scale.
Why is it that “real estate interests” dominate in a local economy like Cleveland? Because, to a great extent, they are among the only ones left.
And that's the thing, Dan. There are lots of people in various leadership positions in the city and the region who clearly understand pretty much everything we've typed.
And what do they have to say about it? Nothing, mostly, unless they've figured out a way to personally profit from the system as is, and then they advocate for it with full knowledge of what it means overall.
S3
Given the strength of real estate interests, I suspect any policy change will happen only if developers see infill as a clear and equally profitable alternative.
In other words, we've far too many cowards.
The truly amazing part is that "stick" most often only refers to making them follow the rules already in place for decades. An even semi-level playing field would constitute a radical shift.
New Albany shouldn't sit around waiting and waiting for the "stick" to hit. We should roll out the welcome mat for developers who might be remotely interested in infill. By that I don't mean write each developer a blank check. We do need to make it easier to build the right types of projects here. We also need to increase property values through rigorous code enforcement, etc.
And the right types of projects are small, independent ones owned and/or operated by people who will most likely live here and contribute to the community in numerous ways beyond just the scope of getting what they can from a particular construction site.
We need solid and equitable much more than grandiose.
To the best of my recollection, I do not know any developers personally. The following is not prejudiced by any relationship bias.
It's awfully easy to call someone else a coward when you have nothing at risk.
The coward remark was not directed at developers. It was directed at people in positions of power who know better than to pursue many of our current directions but choose to go along with it for their personal benefit at the expense of the community.
No worries, Mark. Not that it has anything to do with you or Dan or most of the folks who comment here, but I've just had it with long winded political answers to very simple, straight forward questions.
Some might say cowards. Others might say realists.
Maybe some "cowards" know that challenging the party line would result in crushing defeat by a much better financed, real estate backed opponant in the next election such that the end result is no change. Maybe the "cowards" have calculated that structural issues ensure no change no matter what they do or say. We could lament that part of the problem is that ordinary citizens are less well organized and more reluctant to open their pocketbook but that always has been the case and officials seeking reelection know it. It's easier to raise campagin money when your platform results in 10 people making $100,000 each instead of 100,000 people making $10 each. People funding campaigns generally fund/elect politicians with similar views. Raise your hand if you've written an anti-sprawl check lately.
The costs of sprawl are very high and very real. But the costs are hidden and spread widely.
Sprawl doesn’t mail you a bill. It’s hidden in your insurance premium, in your extra oil change extra year. It’s hidden in your healthcare premiums and your telephone bill.
Many legislative attempts to fight sprawl aren’t hidden. People see that the tax man is sending them a bill. Before voters vote for better policy, they have to understand there’s an issue. Right now it’s about the 253th most important issues on voters’ minds.
Cowards?
Yep. Precisely.
Great discussion...
The connections are being made:
Public policy is subverted by $$$. The Big Fu*king Banks were deregulated 30 years ago to become Main St Extraction machines with no more community pride or ethics than the "Pay Day" Lenders. The "game" is now played on Wall St only.
Road building, in all it's many oil covered facets, has produced lots of wealth for certain sectors of the local economy. They are generous campaign contributors I suspect. You can almost feel city hall salivating every year when they bring out the paving numbers. Am I the only one who feels I must turn away from the disgust of the obvious gorging on asphalt that fattens many a wallet hereabouts?
Coward or realists? Good point Dan.
The big thing I would change to have the biggest impact on greenfield losses and urban infill synergies is Zoning. It's one of the beautiful promises of our democratic system. We as a community can enshrine our common values and goals in Zoning.
Interesting topic
People who exploit the system to better themselves: Cowardly?
Hasn’t this been the American way since inception? Don't we call this Capitalism?
What Jeff is advocating for is an essential change in American generational psyche.
I think achieving Jeff’s goals will be more difficult then attempting to get local government to come up with a "NSP" like project that doesn't have all the "red tape" federal programs have. Besides, most federal programs are the problem.
And if you think that larger local developers are willing take a chance on New Albany's urban core you are sadly mistaken. I personally know a lot of them and you will never here them say anything about investing in New Albany's core. Steve Rusch isn't a success story yet, give him some more time and if the city continues to help him he might become a major player. The only way the city will improve is if the people living in the city makes it happen.
But everything that was said today doesn't change the reason people move out in the first place. There are many reasons but a lot has to do with the change in standard of living and the fact that homes in the urban core doesn’t meet those standards.
Dan has danced around it and Jeff has alluded to it:
Market forces are at play.
I agree that government policy has played a part in urban core problems but the government has always played a reactionary part.
People already moving into older New Albany neighborhoods are doing so because of their understanding of sprawl related issues. More will do so for the same reason.
Attracting and putting those people together will create a much stronger, more sustainable community than catering to large project developers.
I think it fairly obvious that it will be much more difficult to attract and retain those with a higher level of social consciousness or raise awareness at all if we don't actively talk about the single largest issue facing our region and the accompanying actions that tend to be of extreme interest to people repopulating urban neighborhoods all over the country. Avoiding such topics, particularly in the context of urban redevelopment, is not leadership.
There's already an appropriate (and increasing) market for what we have to offer but, aside from some individual efforts, we don't typically communicate with them.
We don't need to capture a large percentage of the mainstream real estate market to make downtown and older neighborhoods work. Based on the overall number of real estate transactions in the region, a tiny percentage would do wonders.
If we are going to subsidize something, it makes more sense to focus on creating opportunities for smaller residential and business endeavors than to follow the usual "find a person who already has a ton of money and give them some more" model. Anyone who has access to enough capital to even be seriously considering purchasing five downtown acres and developing on that scale certainly doesn't need subsidy from me or the majority of New Albanians.
While larger developers may not get it or be willing to take a risk, there are thousands of individual households that do and are. If we paid more attention to them, we could do better.
"I think it fairly obvious that it will be much more difficult to attract and retain those with a higher level of social consciousness or raise awareness at all if we don't actively talk about the single largest issue facing our region"...
Jeff, I missed the issue, sorry...can you put a point on it for me?
"We don't need to capture a large percentage of the mainstream real estate market to make downtown and older neighborhoods work. Based on the overall number of real estate transactions in the region, a tiny percentage would do wonders."
You’re once again talking about market forces.
To capture a portion of the real estate market one must first identify why the urban core isn't doing so. Everything I read so far blames it on suburban sprawl but suburban sprawl is only a reaction to the many issues facing the urban core.
Address these urban core issues; i.e. standard of living, social problems, and certain government practices and you might capture that small percentage.
Said with respect, two-way traffic, on Spring St., isn’t one of the main issues.
Personal safety, or at least one's perception of it, is the number one issue for people choosing homes. When NA is safe, has at least one good school downtown, and the government is redirected to make sustainable policies, then we could thrive. Remember, we are a 7 minute commute to downtown louisville!
Safety can be equated as a certain "standard of living" and schools are of the utmost importance were one, with children, locate. I'm agreeing with you Gina.
If you take a step back and look at what type of environments accompany great schools and low crime rates. One would quickly notice something is different about New Albany's urban core.
Just look at who has posted on this thread, most of us are living in homes that were once inhabited by the upper middle class or elite of an era gone by. Most of us now make up the middle of the middle class. We are the ones who care enough to take the time and communicate with one another; we are the ones seeking ways to make the city better for all.
Most of the people who we are talking about, that inhabit suburbia, are of the same class or higher class. Do we even have enough houses that meet their or our standard of living? No, currently this city does not. Yet those of use who inhabit the former elite's housing expect that others will locate to the urban core for less then we have or want.
There are several ways to address this imbalance. One way could be some type of program to assist renovators or homeowners that buy larger houses that now exist as apartments, and reconvert them back to signal family homes. Another way would be some type of program similar to NSP, but without federal red tape. A third way is to make sure any houses that burned down, or are torn down, are replaced with something better than what was there before. A fourth way is an organization that assists people who are attempting to historically preserve, or return their home's historical characteristics, with financial assistance. Etc.
From my recent attendance at council meetings I don't here anything said above coming from council members or mayoral staff. I think one reason has to do with business interest always coming first. But what I do hear is a lot of complaining and only reactionary policies offered to deal with the complaints.
There isn't any program that will fix generations of evolutionary change effecting New Albany, but a few, small, well thought out, and locally funded programs, over a long period of time can make a difference, until a point that private individuals are willing to takeover without assistance, but the only way this will happen is when a grass roots group is formed that represent the residential needs and desire of the greater community. Currently there isn’t one that I’m aware of.
Claims that fighting sprawl results in less economic growth should be viewed skeptically.
Of all US cities with 1M+ population, the one with the highest rate of economic growth is Portland, Oregon. Portland also is a leader in sustainable policies, urban redevelopment, and bicycle infrastructure.
Every dollar pumped into unnecessary infrastructure is a dollar not spent elsewhere. In many cases, municipalities can see higher rates of return elsewhere.
Exactly, Dan...Portland also instituted an urban growth boundary that completely eliminated sprawl.
Most current data shows that walkability and access to transportation alternatives are the most important issues for people choosing homes.
Which is why a streetcar line that ran from IUS to downtown New Albany to downtown Louisville on existing tracks buried beneath current streets and across the K&I bridge would make NA the gem of the region and is a far more effective and sustainable plan than 8664, the ORBP, and local access bridges combined (not to mention much less expensive).
A similar plan for just that (and more) using largely existing rail lines was developed in the Sixties, Josh. They had to do an addendum because IUS moved to it's current location from downtown Jeffersonville at the time and they immediately saw it as a needed connection.
There's a copy in the Hoosier Room at the NA/FC Library. I need to go copy the whole thing myself.
Finding a decades old rail plan collecting dust is almost as ironic as it will be if the national trucking lobby kills ORBP, which it just might since they're seemingly not too fond of the tolling idea.
If I remember correctly, Portland also did a nice job of directing where any growth would go by planning the transit system first, i.e., development followed predetermined transit paths. The same thing could have happened here in the last couple of decades as at least someone was thinking about it enough to actually put a preliminary plan together.
Indiana Room. Sorry.
Jeff, I agree that a "Stop it" plan would stop sprawl. However, I have a tactical concern. With so many businesses and workers relying on construction to make a living, the "Stop it" pitch will meet great political opposition. When people hear that no more new roads will be built, they'll come up with all sorts of justifications for why new roads create economic miracles.
Instead, I'd pursue a pitch that says instead of building A, build B. No doubt New Albany has plenty of infrastructure needs.
I almost wonder if 86-64 would see less opposition if one bridge were more costly than two. If 86-64 coupled their plan with an extra $2 billion in potential DOT funding for light rail, bike lanes, etc., construction firms might view one bridge (plus sustainable extras) as an equally profitable alternative. Heck, maybe they should make it the most expensive alternative? Is there a way to spend $3 billion on a world-class and comprehensive 21st century sustainable regional transportation system? It would have to be a package deal.
I like the strategic "ions" beaming from that idea, Dan.
Hold on a second, this is not Portland, Org and talking about promoting a regional transportation system on a blog that addresses issues concerning New Albany is a little far reaching, isn't it?
New Albany can't dictate Louisville's transportation policies. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting a comprehensive transportation plan but first things first.
Why not talk about more practical goals; like, trying to reestablish failing urban neighborhoods on the micro level. New Albany is capable of doing that now.
Dan's right, trying to stop sprawl isn't going to go over well in Floyd County. Pursuing efforts like that, at this time, would be irrational.
Light rail from IUS/Purdue to downtown then over the river to Louisville would be so stunning and progressive. Imagine the comfortable air-conditioned ride on these hot summer days, I get to do this all the time in Boston, it's sooooo much nicer than traffic and smog.
Portland Oregon, now there's some serious ZONING.
How about for starters trying to get TARC to offer a direct route from somewhere in Indiana to UofL.
Jameson, using examples of other cities and how they've found ways to accomplish goals is a perfectly acceptable way of looking at things. We're not trying to break new ground in New Albany, just looking to follow what others have shown can work.
You yourself used an example of Paris, France in a discussion about, I believe, two-way streets at one point. I remember advocates for the "paid parking spots" pointing out how well it worked in Jeffersonville. It's logical to point out what others have done in support of what you want (or don't want) to do.
BTW...Dallas, TX city council has endorsed a plan to transform many of the city's one way streets to two-way to help traffic patterns and to encourage growth in the downtown area.
Would any downtown bridge foes change their opinion if the downtown bridge carried light rail?
Of course construction companies will oppose any change in the bridges plan since that necessarily will entail delays in groundbreakings, which entails additional risk that nothing is ever built.
Jameson, I'm not suggesting that NA can or should dictate regional transportaion policy. Louisville would have to be on board too, but they have as much to gain/lose as anyone else.
Metro Portland and Metro Louisvile are approximately the same size. The cultures and politics are very different but the technical aspects and costs-benefit analysis of enlightened growth policies are the same.
This discussion does not yet take into account what the most fiscally responsible thing is to do, but it seems that, at least with respect to the bridges project, fiscal responsibility left the building a long time ago.
The "New Urbanist" philosophy on sprawl is that instead trying to repel people from the cornfields with vinegar (urban growth boundaries, etc.), try to attract them to the cities with honey (livability, amenities, sidewalks, etc.).
I don't know the extent to which more vigorous anti-sprawl measures would work in Floyd Co. I do know that New Albany has a lot it could do to make itself a more attractive alternative.
Believe it or not, there's a real movement out there that uses the premise that current planning (and people who think we do) are trying to steal American freedoms by pouring money into projects that are "anti-automobile". They claim smart growth has not worked anywhere it's been implemented. I've done very little research into it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find an automotive conglomerate of some sort behind it...interestingly enough, the site I came across is called "The Thoreau Institute".
I obviously agree, Dan, with touting the benefits of transit oriented development to lots of different constituencies but that just points back to what much of this and other discussions have been about: the need for various interest groups to take up that touting and education as part of their activities. In some cases, it's already a part of their stated missions.
There's a substantial segment of the regional population who understands such issues right now and New Albany could be attracting and aligning with them.
When KIPDA reviewed its long range transportation plan in 2006/2007, there were already $1.4 billion in light rail and rapid bus transit projects approved and in it, including neighborhood circulators in New Albany that would have connected with express service to Louisville and the initial north/south trunk of a light rail system from downtown Louisville to the airport/Ford/UPS.
As 8864 pointed out at the time, just the savings gleaned from not massively expanding Spaghetti Junction could build the equivalent of the light rail trunk - given "recommended" status by the Federal Transit Authority years ago - three times over. For just the cost of one Bridges segment, we could realistically have a central transit line that bisected the entire area inside the loop and the start of some branches.
When those transit projects were threatened by concentrating on the Bridges Project, KIPDA asked for public comment. They received about 540 responses total with nearly 100% of them in favor of pursuing them.
Despite all the Bridges Coalition blather, there's never actually been broad community consensus around ORBP. Poll and survey after poll and survey from the 80s through today have, however, shown support for an East End Bridge and increased transit options. (cont'd)
Would rapid bus transit service to Louisville make a difference in downtown NA and surrounding neighborhoods? I certainly think so. Did New Albany groups speak up when their transit options were being threatened? Nope. And they were, in fact, taken away. That $1.4 billion in transit projects was relegated to an unfundable status.
We may not have won that particular battle but we could have sent a clear message to those who "get it" that we get it, too, helping to start changing regional perceptions of New Albany and building coalitions and educational/political efforts.
A survey of urban areas across the country consistently reveals success in transit oriented development and the failure of massive road building to mitigate development or congestion problems.
What continues to be amazing is that touting successful models is considered irrational and/or somehow damaging but that doing the same for a model (ORBP) that has a documented 90% failure rate (Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) is perfectly acceptable.
While Jameson makes a valid point that we can't control Louisville politics, New Albany elected officials can certainly bring facts to light to challenge the (often knowingly) erroneous assertions made by the Abramson clique and others in order to advance the conversation to an objective level. Likewise, New Albany civic groups can certainly push New Albany officials to do it. It's just a matter of whose interests they want to serve.
As we've seen lately, when those Bridges assertions are challenged on factual grounds, ORBP proponents are left flat footed with no real response to be offered other than PR spin. Regardless of how anyone feels about sprawl, mass transit, etc., they certainly shouldn't support the expenditure of billions of dollars for no good reason.
I'd add, too, that changes to the Bridges plan would not necessarily lead to delayed groundbreaking. In fact, per the St. Louis example, the opposite is often true.
What's held up groundbreaking on ORBP is the obstinate insistence on two bridges, one plan by the Bridges Coalition and the inability to finance all of it at once. The financial plan is years behind already and as such is jeopardizing funding for every other transportation project in the region, including other road building/maintenance in addition to transit.
Changing that by agreeing to finance and build the East End Bridge first would free the region from being held hostage by ORBP as it has been for years now. Had the Bridges Coalition been smarter, the East End Bridge could be under construction right now.
Two bridges is just "our" pig gorging at the trough. You would think that with all of the "conservatives" around this region, this pig would have been slaughtered long ago.
It's only "pork barrel" if it's someones else's pig.
You're right about that, Mark. Were it not for ORBP, those guys in hard hats the Bridges Coalition paraded around at the last finance meeting could be busy working right now on the East End Bridge, light rail, and any number of needed maintenance projects around the region. They were scheduled to have started years before and have been sacrificed in service to what could very well be the biggest oinker in the country.
But, as Gina mentioned, the game is being played at the Wall Street level, not the Main Street level.
A few bucks on a sewer bill is apparently worth death threats to some but billions aren't worth mentioning. If we were spending $2 billion on multiple projects instead of $4 billion plus on pork, we'd be getting more of what we need, there would be a lot more going toward current rather imaginary wages, and that sewer bill would be of much less concern.
Irony.
Just got a FaceBook invite to a pig roast.
Post a Comment