As considered previously, tonight the city would like for you to choose between celebrating localism at the Calumet Club, and sitting attentively like good, disciplined students while its pre-determined aquatics plans are buffed and polished at Fairmont.
Not good.
Concurrently, last night at the April Fool's edition of the city council, city attorney Shane Gibson replied to a question by Diane Benedetti. She asked whether the administration is aware of the street grid challenges to come when bridge construction and tolling are initiated, and if so, is there a plan?
Gibson said yes, there is. If crazy vague, it is perhaps the first public acknowledgement on the Gahan team's part that someone, somewhere is aware of the immediate future of streets in the city.
Good.
Except that at the same time, last evening's work session and meeting were again dominated by utterly detached ruminations on how fast the city can bond too much more money to apply temporary paving Band-Aids to outmoded and broken roads, while refusing to think about street grid alternatives. $6 million for paving quite clearly is a City Hall initiative. Another $10 - $13 million for a handful of parks. I'm not an alarmist, but if in fact there is a street grid plan, where's the money going to be found?
Not good.
Another episode last evening: City planner Scott Wood countered Dan Coffey's zoning rant by suggesting that it's time to rethink the city's archaic bundle of zoning contradictions, gently suggesting that two decades has a way of changing things. John Gonder then did something quite amazing: He said the words "form based code" aloud, at a city council meeting, in New Albany.
I glanced furtively at the police, concerned that Gonder might be forcibly removed from the room. He wasn't. There was an audible sigh.
If planning and zoning rules and regulations are due a comprehensive rethink, and they are, then why not the street grid, too? Wouldn't this be a better use of time and money BEFORE $6 million is spent paving useless stretches of tarmac?
Or is it too much to expect that a question like this can get a serious hearing in a city determined to fight yesterday's battles, and lose?
Vision? Anyone?
Bueller?
(Link to newspaper coverage)
First, I admit that my knowledge of the overall condition of NA streets is sorely lacking. I just don't drive(walk, run or bike)most of them. Second, a plan before anything is done is a good idea, so I agree with studying the grid, first.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, just where are these "...useless stretches of tarmac?" Are there proposals to pave miles of streets with no housing and/or businesses on them or leading to them? Doubtful.
If Spring Street needed paving, would changing it to two way mean that it suddenly didn't need paving? Same with a residential street. You can improve traffic flow all you want but it will make little difference on the traffic on MOST residential streets.
My point is, studying and changing traffic patterns may lessen some paving needs but I doubt by much. While obviously related, it's mostly two different questions. How best should traffic flow? What constitutes a "deplorable" street condition to require it to be repaved?
A couple of points:
ReplyDeleteTwo-way and walk/bikeability designs could pretty easily change paving needs and patterns. The addition of islands, raised crosswalks, chicanes, chokers, bio swales, protected bike lanes, road diets, etc., could reduce the amount of asphalt needed and/or require newly paved streets to be ripped up.
Also, if we're not going do the right thing and take a more complete approach to streets any time soon, smoothing the driving surface will just encourage even more speed. There's an old joke about digging potholes instead of installing speed bumps that has a lot of truth to it.
As for "useless stretches of tarmac", see Spring Street Hill with its six-figure price tag, hailed as a crucial artery for the purposes of funding dumb.
ReplyDeleteSorry, seven-figure price tag.
ReplyDeleteI won't dispute the Spring Street Hill expense as dumb. Actually, I won't dispute any of what you wrote. It expands on examining the grid.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't examine the grid first and make some changes, then your "digging pot holes" on certain streets right on.
We sometimes get caught up in the "downtownness" of it all - and it makes good sense to start in areas nearest the river owing to density (more bang for the buck) and the looming threat of the bridges fiasco (interstate cut-through central) - but a majority of the rest of the city is inner ring suburb badly in need of retrofitting.
ReplyDeleteMaking the city as a whole function in a less fossil fuel dependent way isn't a preference, it's a necessity for any chance of ongoing viability in coming decades. Planning as though it's any different is just flat out socially and financially irresponsible, regardless of whatever tripe the Bridges Authority and chamber of commerce try to foist on us. It's time to take responsibility and show some inkling of saving ourselves.
State, regional, county, and school system position holders have backed New Albany into a corner and I'd at least like to see us get a few cuts in while we still have any choice at all.