A Letter to INDOT
I appreciate your policy of hearing comments from interested citizens regarding this proposal. I spoke briefly at the February 3 pubic hearing you held in Goshen, but I did not want to make an extended speech in that setting. The motivation for and logic of this proposed plan was almost universally criticized at the February 3, 1998, hearing. The only persons clearly in favor of the INDOT proposal were two individuals who are on the Goshen city payroll. I am a residential property owner along the proposed project. We have lived at this location since 1972 when we constructed a home on the property. Because of its unique aesthetic, our house has been a featured nationally in Ceramics Monthly and was covered in a feature article, "A House from a Potter's Wheel" in the Sunday Magazine of the Indianapolis Star, September 16, 1973. Our house is designed to organically fit with the forest location. I also designed the attractive house directly to the southeast of us, also on U.S. 33. We have for many years taken pride in making a small contribution to the aesthetic quality associated with entering this community from the Southeast on US 33. We live on one acre sites in natural virgin forest. We have retained the trees and the natural setting. Taking 20 feet of our frontage will not destroy our houses, just our peace, quality of life, and sanity. Twenty more feet of forest will be dead and the noise of industry and commerce will wake us earlier in the mornings. Professionally, I am educated first in the liberal arts and secondly as an artist. I hold an earned doctorate in art education. I am a professor of art at Goshen College. I am quite aware of the principles of good design, having taught these concepts for many years. A major road widening makes a huge change in the way the community defines and identifies itself. It will become more difficult to foster pride and interest in historical and conservation efforts that engender a sense of place. The project you are currently proposing will directly and negatively impact many more persons than a well designed by-pass. We have certainly been disappointed with the poor planning of the commercial development southeast of us on U.S. 33. This area has become a signage eyesore and a safety hazard. The local planners and INDOT allowed a proliferation of commercial sites to exit directly onto the highway, thus creating many hazardous opportunities for accidents. Now the number of accidents is listed as a reason to widen and "improve" the highway. Who was the smart planner who failed to predict such an outcome? Now the state is being asked to spend over $30 million on this road, when the commercial sites could and should have provided a service road to the nearest signaled intersection in the first place. Because of these recent past errors in planning, I can not oppose the widening of the area between CR 36 and CR 40. Since that area is already a commercial strip, widening the road does not materially change the ambiance of the area. However, between CR 36 and the center of Goshen, widening is not justified. As designers in the public domain, we must look at the greatest good for the greatest number, not merely what current political and commercial pressures may be requesting. When it comes to handling the traffic problem in Goshen, we have lived with cheap shortsighted solutions for many years. The Goshen area is blessed with numerous recreational vehicle and manufactured home factories. We continually pick up factory trash that falls off double-wide units being towed along on U.S. 33 in front of our property. There is a uniquely high volume of very large rigs traversing Goshen streets. If you are not careful crossing Main Street in Goshen, you could literally be killed by a house. This wide, awkward, and oversize traffic should be on a bypass - not on city streets. Why is it good design to make the downtown city streets through the heart of town their route of choice? Because of short sighted planning in the past, U.S. 33 continues to pass right through the middle of the city. Nobody would set out to design such a thing today. Today we know this is bad design. To widen it does not change it into a good design. Widening will cause downward pressure on housing near the route. Widening will attract the wrong traffic to the center of the city. The old road is wide enough for local destination traffic. According to stories in the Goshen News, the number of trains blocking U.S. 33 and College Avenue between 8th and 10th Streets will soon double because of recent mergers by the railroad companies. Overpasses are not included in your proposal, but would soon be an essential addition for reasons of health and safety. A bypass is a more logical way to expedite traffic. Take the money and build the by-pass first. Relocate the artery. The by-pass is the only long-term solution. Therefore it is also the most cost effective and the best design. I realize a by-pass, like any large public project will be disruptive to some people. However, the by-pass is ultimately more logical than the proposed U.S. 33 project because it facilitates much better and safer traffic flow. It is the long term solution. It is the best solution. Enlarging a city's dissection through its heart is bad design. This is not simply a question of traffic and road improvement, it effects the very heart of this city. One of the most important basic principles of good design in public planning is to leave a place better than it was found. The current proposal fails to meet this test. Respectfully submitted,
Marvin Bartel, February 11, 1998 cc: Frank O'Bannon, Governor
www.bartelart.com Letter to The Goshen News Letter State Senator Riegsecker Other Links Click the item you want to see.
|
