AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2011, 09:48:03 PM

Title: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2011, 09:48:03 PM
Is it me? But it seems today's DOTs seems to bow too much to public comment and interest groups.  I'm not saying ignore them totally but there should be a fine line.

Case in point:
The CT DOT wants to build a full directional interchange with CT-15 Merritt Pkwy and US 7 where a partial one currently exists.
The DOT actually started the project, complete with flyovers and modern design.  However a group called the Merrit Pkwy conservancy sued in court and won stopping the construction in progress, claiming historic character was damaged considering it's on the Nat'l Register of Historic Places.

If that isn't bad enough the MPC got very vocal as most of these groups do, and hired their own engineer that said a cloverleaf design was the best way to go for character and traffic flow.  And the DOT agreed, they tried to push the cloverleaf design through in 2009 by showing the public at a meeting other "successful cloverleafs" and the publc said no.  The public got mad b/c the cloverleaf design would take more land than a flyover design would therefore interfering with nearby houses.

Thank god people stood their groud b/c what if the cloverleaf design won!?!?  The DOT was all set to push it through to what seemed like to appease the MPC.  This group wants the pkwy to be like it was 1938.

also, the MPC also got mad when a TIGER project cut down too many trees while replacing culverts and guidrails etc. 

Now there have been high profile deaths on the road caused by falling trees on the pkwy during storms etc.  These are trees that are usually in the very narrow median.  The DOT says if they think a tree is unsafe they will cut it down and not contact the MPC.  I dunno, I wonder b/c it seems like people like to satisfy these groups.  To be honest on other roads with a narrow median such as the Merritt's there wouldn't be any trees.


Thoughts? Anything similiar in your area?  It seems the goal should be roadway traffic flow and safety in 2011.

Post Merge: July 13, 2011, 06:09:39 AM

I also notice there were plans to close some entrance ramps to imrpove flow during rush hour on other limited access highways but everytime the DOT suggests that there is some group that complains saying the ramp should be open.  The DOT listens to them and nothing is done and the problem remains the same.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: US71 on July 12, 2011, 09:54:25 PM
That has almost always been Arkansas. So afraid of paving over some farmer's field that they do nothing. It took over 20 years to begin building I-540 north of Alma because (1) there was no money (2) no one wanted it in their backyard

Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Scott5114 on July 12, 2011, 09:55:38 PM
I think Connecticut has it worse than most on this. My favorite example of DOT—public interaction was when a car dealership complained in a public meeting when Oklahoma DOT proposed closing the Lindsey Street interchange in Norman, where the dealership was located. ODOT responded by adding a new alternate where the interchange remained open but the ramps were relocated to run straight through the car dealership.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2011, 09:59:56 PM
what's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: NE2 on July 12, 2011, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2011, 09:59:56 PM
what's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?
AAA is an 'interest group' :)
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: J N Winkler on July 13, 2011, 01:08:47 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 12, 2011, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2011, 09:59:56 PMwhat's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?

AAA is an 'interest group' :)

Where infrastructure provision and the motoring agenda is concerned, AAA is both a collection of pet rocks and a stooge of the security state.  In more sharply defined counterpoint to the statement implied in Jake's (rhetorical?) question, ARTBA and AASHTO are also interest groups.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: SSOWorld on July 13, 2011, 06:11:31 AM
AAA is an 'Interest Group' that wants a 55-mph speed limit law :P
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2011, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: Master son on July 13, 2011, 06:11:31 AM
AAA is an 'Interest Group' that wants a 55-mph speed limit law :P

what a bunch of assholes.  I can't believe they went from their "good roads" campaign - helpfully signing things, leaving classic porcelain guide signs for collectors - to being a bunch of contrarian dickbags.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: CL on July 13, 2011, 12:59:24 PM
Two words: Legacy Parkway. Two more words: Sierra Club. Legacy Parkway was originally set to be a six-lane, modern freeway that was situated a bit farther west than it already is. 65 mph speed limits, more interchanges, completion in the early 2000s, and the like.

Well, the Sierra Club, along with the then-mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson (a left-winger), stepped in. With their intervention, Legacy Parkway became a four-lane "parkway" (aka watered-down freeway) with 55 mph limits, less frequently spaced interchanges, a partial interchange at its southern terminus, a ban on trucks, trail systems, no billboards, etc. I actually don't mind the last three items, but other than that... The Sierra Club and Mayor Anderson (whose jurisdiction didn't even reach to Legacy Parkway!) claimed they were sparing the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. Eh. I don't know if they really reach as far east as they claim.

Traffic counts have been lower than expected on Legacy, as a result. There's no easy access from I-15 in Salt Lake to Legacy, so instead of a 30% reduction of traffic on parallel I-15, it's been more like 20%.

Oh, and it's Utah's only road with Clearview signage. Take that for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2011, 01:14:54 PM
the Legacy Parkway is the most disappointing drive in Utah.  When I first saw it on a map, I was like "I had no idea there was a limited-access road there"... I figured, given the name "Parkway" it was some relic of the 1950s, signed entirely in button copy on black-background signs, with glass cateyed cutout US route markers every quarter-mile (despite it not even being a US highway) and ... err, no, nothing of the sort.

damn you, false advertising.  "parkway" is not to be used on any road built or refurbished more recently than 1962.  See: New York.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 13, 2011, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: CL on July 13, 2011, 12:59:24 PM
Two words: Legacy Parkway. Two more words: Sierra Club. Legacy Parkway was originally set to be a six-lane, modern freeway that was situated a bit farther west than it already is. 65 mph speed limits, more interchanges, completion in the early 2000s, and the like.

Well, the Sierra Club, along with the then-mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson (a left-winger), stepped in. With their intervention, Legacy Parkway became a four-lane "parkway" (aka watered-down freeway) with 55 mph limits, less frequently spaced interchanges, a partial interchange at its southern terminus, a ban on trucks, trail systems, no billboards, etc. I actually don't mind the last three items, but other than that... The Sierra Club and Mayor Anderson (whose jurisdiction didn't even reach to Legacy Parkway!) claimed they were sparing the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. Eh. I don't know if they really reach as far east as they claim.

Traffic counts have been lower than expected on Legacy, as a result. There's no easy access from I-15 in Salt Lake to Legacy, so instead of a 30% reduction of traffic on parallel I-15, it's been more like 20%.

Oh, and it's Utah's only road with Clearview signage. Take that for what it's worth.

I can understand moving a proposed freeway to a less environmentally sensitive location, but I'm not sure what some of the other things like banning trucks and billboards have to do with it.  (I think the rationale for billboard bans is often questionable, but that's a different topic.)  If a six-lane freeway was needed (and I don't know enough about Legacy Parkway to know whether it was or was not needed), couldn't a similar freeway with the same speed limit and the same number of interchanges have been built in the new location?  Also, why would they lower the speed limit when reducing the frequency of interchanges!?
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Brandon on July 14, 2011, 08:34:28 PM
Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: roadfro on July 14, 2011, 09:32:32 PM
^ Take that two word "Sierra Club" and add "US 95" in Las Vegas. The widening project that was started in the mid naughties was held up in court by the Sierra Club because they believed NDOT overlooked some things during the EIS phase. The suit went in as part of the project was already under construction...sound walls and drainage features were worked on, but the mainline widening was halted for over a year as the trial went on--resulting in vehicles driving on very bumpy and misaligned temporary pavement while the case was heard. Eventually, the suit was settled with NDOT making some minor concessions (including installing some air quality monitoring stations at three school sites that are located adjacent to the freeway).

What I didn't understand about all this was that if the Sierra Club thought NDOT didn't have everything together, why wasn't more said before the final EIS was approved?
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Revive 755 on July 14, 2011, 10:17:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2011, 08:34:28 PM
Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!

Where's the ranting over the in limbo IL 53 extension beyond Lake Cook Road?  :sombrero:  That one is just as bad, if not worse - at least the southern extension of I-355 was freeway grade.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: NE2 on July 14, 2011, 10:23:34 PM
All these highways exist because of interest groups pushing for their construction. Don't cry just because not everyone agrees.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Scott5114 on July 14, 2011, 11:05:39 PM
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: NE2 on July 14, 2011, 11:17:47 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: CL on July 14, 2011, 11:19:08 PM
Legacy Parkway has existed on paper in one form or another since the 1960s, as the West Davis Highway. The State Highway Commission/Highway Department envisioned this road, and the latter's predecessor UDOT pushed for its construction. I don't know if you consider a DOT an interest group, but there you have it.

To be fair, the Sierra Club did have a few legitimate concerns about wetlands preservation. But will a six-lane, concrete-surfaced, 65 mph freeway really do more harm than a four-lane, 55 mph, asphalt-surfaced freeway in the same location? No. It's asinine and nonsensical.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Brandon on July 15, 2011, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 14, 2011, 10:17:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2011, 08:34:28 PM
Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!

Where's the ranting over the in limbo IL 53 extension beyond Lake Cook Road?  :sombrero:  That one is just as bad, if not worse - at least the southern extension of I-355 was freeway grade.

That has its own special interest group problem in the name of the Village of Long Grove.  Personally, I favor boycotting any and all businesses in Long Grove until they get the point that IL-53 needs to be built.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Scott5114 on July 15, 2011, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 14, 2011, 11:17:47 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.

Yeah, back in 1916, when federal aid for highways was a new concept. That doesn't equate to the Sierra Club fighting individual highways like the other posters were talking about. Can you provide an instance of a pro-highway interest group existing for the specific cases of:

Your exact quote is
QuoteAll these highways exist because of interest groups pushing for their construction.

If you stand by this assertion that, indeed, "all these highways"–I'm holding you to mean all five of these highways, mind you, and not weasel out of it by claiming that you're referring to all the highways in the US or some bullshit like that–exist directly because of an interest group actively pushing them to completion? If not, and you're tying them all to the indirect actions of one interest group in 1916, then you're equivocating. That's not what people were talking about in this thread, and you're trying to be a sleaze by trying to pass that off as analogous to the Sierra Club's actions.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: NE2 on July 15, 2011, 04:59:27 PM
Stop changing the goalposts.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Scott5114 on July 15, 2011, 08:26:54 PM
Malarkey.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: 3467 on July 15, 2011, 09:45:44 PM
There are several interest groups in support of specific routes in Illinois,Corridor 67 and groups for US51,US 30,US 34 ,US 20. There are groups opposed to US 20 and Illinois 336.
No one organized in Chicago
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Brandon on July 16, 2011, 08:26:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2011, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 14, 2011, 11:17:47 PM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.

Yeah, back in 1916, when federal aid for highways was a new concept. That doesn't equate to the Sierra Club fighting individual highways like the other posters were talking about. Can you provide an instance of a pro-highway interest group existing for the specific cases of:

  • I-355/IL 53
The County of Lake, Illinois for the northern extension.  The County has expressed 100% support for the extension as have most of the municipalities in the County except Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.

And while we're at it, many of the local governmental units have expressed support for:
Prairie Parkway (Kendall County)
Illiana Expressway (Will County is 100% behind it)
[/list]
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Scott5114 on July 16, 2011, 09:36:35 AM
I wouldn't call a local government supporting something an "interest group"; governments typically have a purpose other than acting as advocates for a particular stand on policy.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: 3467 on July 16, 2011, 10:23:09 AM
The big Lake County Vote will help with the Tollway but IDOT really doent pay that much attention to local government or interest groups. US 20 had a former congressman plus majority support and local government suppport. If you check the threads under Midwest you can see its a dead project due to cost overruns and lack of supermajority support. Its a choice between the Tollway and more work on the existing road.
Only Corridor 67 has a PAC. Those help a lot. Better yet the Chicago-KC (Illinois 110) had a Newspaper/TV Station owner
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 12:14:39 PM
Well let's get real here. Any major exurban highway project is going to be a huge windfall for particular land speculators. (Who often have spent decades assembling rights long before the general public is even aware of the project.)

Real estate interests don't *need* to form "interest groups", as they have an incredible amount of "soft power", especially on the local governmental level. Regardless of a merits of a project, it's pretty naive to believe that any highway gets built purely for goo-goo Good Government reasons. There is a lot of money at stake.

Anti-highway groups are visible because usually "the fix is in" and they only way to fight it is through the legal process. And, unfortunately we have set up this ridiculously complex technocratic system where the only practical way for citizens to oppose horizontal growth is to cry about the spotted dragonfly or whatever. There rarely is a "up or down" vote on such things.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 17, 2011, 02:18:36 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?

that's like asking "what's wrong with setting one's self on fire, provided we don't burn ourselves?"
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?
The problems with sprawl are extremely well documented; but primarily it externalizes costs for the benefit of a few. The important point here is that much of our highway spending is doing nothing to improve the economic infrastructure of the country, and some if it might be a net negative. (Admittedly this may not apply to Illinois tollway expansion.)
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: J N Winkler on July 17, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 12:14:39 PMAnti-highway groups are visible because usually "the fix is in" and they only way to fight it is through the legal process. And, unfortunately we have set up this ridiculously complex technocratic system where the only practical way for citizens to oppose horizontal growth is to cry about the spotted dragonfly or whatever. There rarely is a "up or down" vote on such things.

Another aspect of the problem is that whereas major highway construction is tightly controlled through the requirement to compile an EIS (which cannot be avoided by refusing federal funding because Section 404 permits are still necessary), there is almost nowhere a correspondingly high level of control over other planning decisions, such as allowing subdivision and housing construction.

My personal philosophy is that residential development needs to be well-served in terms of transportation facilities.  I don't particularly care whether that is done through highways, mass transit, or the two in combination, as long as the level of service provided is high.  However, the current situation--speculative housing development in combination with restraint in transportation infrastructure development--makes it difficult to achieve this goal, particularly in areas near the coast where year-on-year population growth tends to be high.  We also have a generalized low-tax mentality (even in stereotypically "blue" areas) which works against the provision of other infrastructure that is necessary for new development, such as flood control.

In Wichita pretty much every subdivision built from the immediate postwar period to about 1990 has very effective flood protection from the Big Ditch (completed 1959 at a cost of about $20 million), but now most new development on the west side is occurring in the Cowskin Creek basin, which regularly floods.  Low-tax fanatics move out there and then wonder why water comes into their houses when it rains.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?
The problems with sprawl are extremely well documented; but primarily it externalizes costs for the benefit of a few. The important point here is that much of our highway spending is doing nothing to improve the economic infrastructure of the country, and some if it might be a net negative. (Admittedly this may not apply to Illinois tollway expansion.)
Those of us who like to drive, want good roads, and aren't on the anti-car bandwagon are the few?  IMO we should bring highway development back to where it was in the 50s and 60s, before the highway revolt.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 18, 2011, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 18, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?
The problems with sprawl are extremely well documented; but primarily it externalizes costs for the benefit of a few. The important point here is that much of our highway spending is doing nothing to improve the economic infrastructure of the country, and some if it might be a net negative. (Admittedly this may not apply to Illinois tollway expansion.)
Those of us who like to drive, want good roads, and aren't on the anti-car bandwagon are the few?  IMO we should bring highway development back to where it was in the 50s and 60s, before the highway revolt.

What do you have against food? Grains need land to grow. Livestock need land to graze.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: Brandon on July 18, 2011, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 17, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 01:53:52 PM
What's wrong with horizontal growth, provided we don't create another housing bubble?
The problems with sprawl are extremely well documented; but primarily it externalizes costs for the benefit of a few. The important point here is that much of our highway spending is doing nothing to improve the economic infrastructure of the country, and some if it might be a net negative. (Admittedly this may not apply to Illinois tollway expansion.)

In my experience, growth happens, and roads must be built after the growth happens (see IL-53 extension for an example).  People will build where it is cheap, good roads and access be damned.  Better to try to be somewhat prepared than the other way 'round.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2011, 12:24:02 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 18, 2011, 08:07:24 PM

What do you have against food? Grains need land to grow. Livestock need land to graze.
Do we look like we're anywhere near a shortage of food?  As much as people complain about growing corn for ethanol, the truth is we have a surplus.  A HUGE surplus.  It's to the point where the supply/demand curve is so out of whack that farmers operate at a loss before government subsidies.  This is all explained in the documentary "King Corn".

Not to mention that we prefer to throw away food rather than give to the poor.  THAT'S why we have starvation, not because we don't have enough food.

Plus I like having my own space.  I hate having to share a living area with someone, which is what happens when you pack people like sardines.  As long as we keep population growth in check (I'd implement a GLOBAL two children per family policy as well as one child per family in India, China, Africa, and Latin America) we won't out-grow the food supply.

And who wants to walk or take a bus?  The day I can reasonably get groceries from the store to home without a car is the day we all eat freeze-dried NASA food.  We NEED good transportation.  This means HIGHWAYS.  Surface streets don't work so well for large traffic volumes.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: jjakucyk on July 19, 2011, 07:38:27 PM
Who wants to walk?  LOTS of people.  In fact, everyone walks at some point.  It's just that nobody wants to walk in the car-dominated sprawling dystopia we've built over the last 80 years.  We wouldn't need lots of highways or even wide surface streets if we built at reasonable densities.  Reasonable doesn't mean "packing people like sardines" either.  The most pleasant and oft-visted human settlements in the world are ones that have very high densities.  Think Tokyo, Paris, Florence, Amsterdam, Prague, etc.  These places have very narrow streets and high densities, but they're awesome places to be in because you can walk everywhere you need to go, and you're not walking next to a road with roaring traffic.  Density doesn't require 30 story high rise apartments either.  3-4 story townhouse neighborhoods are very dense and quite pleasant at the same time, especially the ones with very narrow streets that are easy to walk down.  You don't need a huge lawn to buffer you from traffic when there's no traffic, after all, and if the streets are all small, rather than 60 feet wide, then walking becomes much easier.  We've been building settlements like this for thousands of years, and they still work, it's only the ones we started building in the 19th and 20th centuries that don't.     

The question isn't how to fight NIMBYism and public interest groups, it's why do these groups even exist?  The answer is because people are fed up with the current development pattern.  It's taken a while, but people are finally starting to realize, even if only subconsciously, that more strip malls, more lanes of highways, more subdivisions simply aren't worth it anymore.  It's coming from the same place as the historic preservation movement.  We've been tearing down old buildings and building roads and infrastructure since the beginning of human history, and it's only recently that people have started fighting it.  Why?  Because historically when we tore something down or built new stuff, it was nearly always better than what was there before.  Now, the new stuff is almost always worse.  This is why people will look for anything they can to stop a new subdivision or highway.  After all, they'll just have that much more traffic to deal with, wider more unpleasant roads, more pollution, and they'll be farther away from real nature.  More sprawl won't make the lives of existing residents better, so why shouldn't they fight it?

The solution isn't to fight against these people, but to figure out what would actually make things better for them and for everyone.  If they don't want more highways and sprawl, maybe the solution is more transit and real towns.  If strip malls and parking lots aren't wanted, then propose a real Main Street with a plaza or park (but not undefined and useless "green space").  Look at the places where people want to live, i.e. where rents/prices are high, which are more traditional walkable neighborhoods, and replicate that so that more people can afford it.  There's a lot of people out there who want density and good walkable urbanism, but they can't get it because it's in such high demand.  Sprawl and subdivisions are cheap in no small part because it's so oversupplied, and it's easy to do, never mind how bad it is. 

Another thing that needs to happen is to properly weight the opinions of the various interest groups.  The big problem with public involvement in the US is that only those with a vested interest in the project (whether for or against) will make any noise about it.  That usually boils down to the government and developer (for) butting heads with nearby property owners and residents (against).  There needs to be a third component, those residents and business owners who aren't directly affected, and who don't have a personal interest in the project.  They wouldn't generally show up to meetings because they don't care enough to spend time on it, but these are the people who need to represent the community as a whole.  Some countries select people from the jury pool so they can get a random cross-sampling of the population.  However it's done, getting that third component is much more effective in mediating the other two camps. 
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 19, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
there is a difference between "more highways" and "more strip malls".  I absolutely hate suburban arterial development, but I certainly do enjoy having roads to take me to places.  

it would be nice to disconnect the levels of traffic from the levels of development.  I'd rather have twice as many lanes as needed... and kept that way, by people not suddenly building infrastructure to need those lanes.  I really like having a fully four-laned, limited access (okay, close enough) national network of roads - even though four lanes of I-80 is way too much for, say, Elko to Battle Mountain, Nevada... and somehow we've managed to keep it that way by not turning rural northern Nevada into suburban Hell.

why can't we achieve that elsewhere?  who the Hell decided to turn Las Vegas into Henderson, anyway?
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: jjakucyk on July 19, 2011, 08:58:59 PM
Maybe because roads to nowhere (or through nowhere anyway) don't pay their way.  In fact, it seems that typical suburban development doesn't pay its own way as it is.  "New growth" has to subsidize the replacement of older suburban infrastructure after it reaches the end of its first life cycle, otherwise property taxes have to be increased by an extra 50-200%.  Even if a 4-lane divided highway can't be maintained from the tax receipts of strip malls, office parks, and residential subdivisions, it's still less "in the red" than if it was just running through corn fields. 

There are factors that disconnect development from roads alone, though it's not easy to keep in check.  To get beyond what I guess you could call "rural sprawl" to actual suburban development, you need sanitary sewers.  A lack of sewers can keep growth in check through a corridor that's still well-connected to highways.  Nevertheless, you can still end up with a lot of low density residential development, and what's to stop individual subdivisions from opening up their own treatment plant?  Once a few of those come online, and residents start complaining about its maintenance, then a new municipal sewer system is hooked up, boom, the big developments start. 

For Nevada specifically, it may be as simple as water availability.  If there's no aquifer that can be easily tapped by private wells, or any other decent source to create a municipal water supply, there's your answer right there.  It may also be that there's simply nothing there to start with, or the terrain is just too rugged and inhospitable. 
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: J N Winkler on July 19, 2011, 10:15:26 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on July 19, 2011, 07:38:27 PMIt's taken a while, but people are finally starting to realize, even if only subconsciously, that more strip malls, more lanes of highways, more subdivisions simply aren't worth it anymore.  It's coming from the same place as the historic preservation movement.  We've been tearing down old buildings and building roads and infrastructure since the beginning of human history, and it's only recently that people have started fighting it.  Why?  Because historically when we tore something down or built new stuff, it was nearly always better than what was there before.  Now, the new stuff is almost always worse.  This is why people will look for anything they can to stop a new subdivision or highway.  After all, they'll just have that much more traffic to deal with, wider more unpleasant roads, more pollution, and they'll be farther away from real nature.  More sprawl won't make the lives of existing residents better, so why shouldn't they fight it?

I don't fully agree with this analysis.  It is not true that people have only recently started opposing new development or redevelopment of what already exists.  The mentalities involved were very much in evidence in the aftermath of the London fire of 1666, for example.  There is also a hedonic treadmill involved.  150 years ago, closed sewers were a novelty; now they are normal expected provision.  70 years ago, commuter freeways were a novelty; now they are normal expected provision.  When they are freed from the need to worry about basic sanitation and connections to the transportation network, people's concerns will shift toward second-order concerns, such as the functional characteristics of their dwellings and neighborhoods.  But in general discontent with new development is not something that materialized with the motor car.

The real problem with sprawl as it is experienced now is not peripheral development per se but rather the fact that, in many communities, the spatial development that actually occurs on the periphery is in excess of that actually required to accommodate population growth in the community, and the network infrastructure provision associated with that new development is typically inferior to that already provided in established neighborhoods.

In Wichita, for example, the "hot" retail development on the west side is NewMarket Square (basically, an overgrown strip mall) at 21st and Maize, 4 miles from the nearest freeway interchange.  The nearby arterials are all five-lanes with TWLTLs which are made nightmarish to negotiate by hordes of thoughtless left-turners.  Meanwhile, Twin Lakes (1.5 miles from the nearest interchange) and Towne West (right at the I-235/US 54 cloverleaf) are both in decline, with neither being fully rented out.  NewMarket Square has grown in tandem with, and in service of, Reflection Ridge, a McMansion subdivision built north of 21st Street to accommodate middle managers at the aircraft plants.

I don't envy the residents of Reflection Ridge their money and their square footage, not least because they have to deal with Stalinist HOAs and a high property crime rate which is driven by frequent turnover of property, which is in itself a symptom of the property-as-investment disease.  For me it is perfectly viable to walk or cycle to the nearest supermarket; this is not so for the residents of Reflection Ridge, because they have to contend with single-point access to the arterials and five-lane hell once they reach them.  I can see my freeway access from my living-room window; they have to drive for ten minutes minimum before they reach a freeway.  The new is far worse than the old in terms of accessibility to transport, choice of travel mode for basic errands, crime rate, and many other quality-of-life measures.  It is also more expensive--houses in Reflection Ridge cost about twice as much per SF as older houses in Wichita.

But when commercial interests pour money into NewMarket Square and similar arterial-corner developments in order to service Reflection Ridge, and as a result existing retail developments like Twin Lakes and Towne West wither on the vine, that affects me personally.  It makes me more disposed to support controls on spatial development which are designed to maintain the vitality of existing development.

The problem is that any controls that are imposed must not have the unintentional and unwanted consequence of raising the cost of setting up a new business or developing land to the extent that they raise the cost of living.  This is the basic tradeoff inherent in planning control.  If an American supermarket chain spends just $2 million to develop a new site, and its British counterpart has to spend £20 million to develop a site of the same size, and both American and British supermarket chains operate to similar expectations of marginal profit, then how do you think the British supermarket chain recovers its higher land costs?  (This is an actual example taken from a [British] Competition Commission report into supermarket pricing, investigating suspected price-gouging in British supermarkets.)

QuoteThe solution isn't to fight against these people, but to figure out what would actually make things better for them and for everyone.

Yes, it is, and high-density is not necessarily the answer for every region.  In Wichita, for example, it wouldn't fly.  There have been attempts to encourage high-density development downtown and these have had some success, but they have required the city government to enter the property market as a risk absorber and demand for condo-style downtown living is soft.

QuoteSprawl and subdivisions are cheap in no small part because it's so oversupplied, and it's easy to do, never mind how bad it is.

Part of the reason subdivisions are cheap is that the infrastructure now provided for them--freeway access, flood control, etc.--is far inferior to that provided for comparable subdivision development in the 1950's and 1960's when there was a more firmly entrenched culture of prudential provision.  What cities like Wichita have been moving to, in default of such a culture, is a planning model which treats land as a fungible, consumable commodity.

I am not sure what to suggest in terms of a solution, except to point out that densification is not a one-size-fits-all answer for every community, any more than the old approach of subdividing full sections, providing basic commercial facilities at every mile intersection, and providing freeways on a grid with four- to six-mile spacing was for every community back in the 1960's.  History suggests that some communities will fail to find good answers, while others will be both smart and lucky.  Not every city can be at the head of the class; some will have to wear the dunce cap.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: berberry on July 19, 2011, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on July 12, 2011, 09:48:03 PMThoughts? Anything similiar in your area?

I don't know anything about this specific situation, but I can at least think of one possible reason why a local group might prefer a cloverleaf or SPUI to a stack or directional:  aesthetics.  Stacks in particular - and directionals to a lesser extent - are almost always unsightly, the only exception as far as I'm concerned is when they complement their surroundings, which is fairly rare but does happen, like sometimes near a downtown.

I understand that cloverleaf interchanges can be horribly dangerous.  Even though I think they're often attractive-looking, I'd probably be opposed to building a new one except in small towns and rural areas, or on non-interstate roadways.  Stacks and modern directionals can be much safer and even a pleasure to use, but graded for their appearance from nearby locations they often rate an F-.
Title: Re: Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups
Post by: vdeane on July 20, 2011, 12:54:02 PM
It's one thing to be against the insane amount of subdivision development today and quite another to be against all suburbs and transportation other than mass transit.  As for what's to stop development along an arterial - how about zoning laws?  Getting people to view homes as places where they live and not as investments would help.  Demand was HIGHLY inflated during the housing boom because most of the buyers were buying the house not to live in it but to sell it in two years at inflated prices.  It was essentially a decentralized ponzi scheme.

I'll also mention that I've lived in upstate NY my entire life.  I never saw the housing boom.  We were (and still are) business as usual here - the housing market hasn't changed that much in my lifetime.