Showdown over a river
Ohio 32 bridge at Little Miami hinges on court ruling
BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
For 105 miles, the Little Miami River snakes through five counties in
southwestern Ohio before emptying into the Ohio River in Cincinnati.

But it's a tiny horseshoe bend in the river, a mile north of Lunken Airport,
that could delay for years a $1.4 billion regional transportation project
intended to improve transportation between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs.

Three environmental groups - Rivers Unlimited, Little Miami Inc. and the Sierra
Club - filed a lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to
stop the Eastern Corridor project from moving forward because they don't want a
multilane highway bridge built across the Little Miami.

No one knows for certain yet whether the lawsuit will be a pothole or a chasm on
the project's path to completion.

"It depends on how the judge rules," said Gilbert Newman, the Ohio regional
manager for Balke American, the engineering firm hired by the Hamilton County
Transportation Improvement District to manage the project.

"A judge could say, 'The lawsuit's premature until we know what specific highway
route is proposed.' Or he could say, 'Until this lawsuit goes through the
courts, all work on the project should stop.' "

Brian Litmans, an attorney representing the three environmental groups, said
there's no predictable timetable for a court decision.

"I've handled environmental cases that are resolved in less than a year and
cases that take longer," he said. "Each court is different."

Until a judge says otherwise, Balke American continues to prepare for the
project's second phase. That phase includes choosing a preferred route for an
expanded and relocated Ohio 32 that would connect Interstate 71 in Fairfax to
I-275 near the Eastgate Mall in Clermont County's Union Township.

The reconstructed and relocated Ohio 32 would begin at Red Bank Road and extend
south, cross the Little Miami and head east through Newtown and Anderson
Township into the Eastgate area.

Supporters of the Eastern Corridor project say the highway would relieve traffic
congestion on such major thoroughfares as Ohio 32, I-275, Clough Pike and Ohio
125 and would trigger economic development in East Side Cincinnati
neighborhoods, first-ring eastern Hamilton County suburbs and central Clermont
County.

The project has roots dating to the 1950s. At that time, regional planners began
discussing a bypass to U.S. 50 in the East Side. But in the 1980s, that project
gave way to a less disruptive option - an improved and reconstructed Ohio 32.

During the past 35 years, residential and commercial growth in the eastern part
of Greater Cincinnati has placed more strain on Ohio 32 and other primary
east-west roads.

Since 1970, Clermont County's population has doubled to 190,589, while Anderson
Township's has jumped from 25,887 to nearly 45,000. Commercial development in
the Eastgate Mall and the Beechmont Avenue corridor also has resulted in
increased traffic. More than 18,000 vehicles per day travel on Ohio 32 through
Newtown, according to the state's 2005 traffic count.

To reduce traffic congestion, the Eastern Corridor project includes not only the
highway, but also a 17-mile rail transit line, bus transit improvements and bike
trails.

Before construction can begin on any part of the project, detailed design plans
must be developed and approved by federal authorities, right-of-way must be
acquired and a financial plan must be developed.

The funding partners in this project are Hamilton County, Clermont County,
Cincinnati, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority and the Ohio Department of
Transportation.

In a best-case scenario, construction of the 13.5-mile highway - the most
controversial component of the project - would begin in 2010 and be completed in
2015, said Ted Hubbard, Hamilton County deputy engineer.

The three environmental groups contend that building a highway bridge across the
Little Miami in the area of a horseshoe bend in Linwood would significantly and
irreparably harm the aesthetic, environmental and recreational value of this
nationally designated "wild and scenic river."

"We don't want anything to damage that river," said Mike Fremont, president
emeritus of Rivers Unlimited and a veteran canoeing enthusiast. "The crossing
would be in an area that is essentially a park."

The environmental groups would prefer that an existing bridge, such as the
Beechmont Levee, be expanded to accommodate the new highway.

"It will create an air-polluted corridor," he said. "We should be building
railway corridors, not highways. I don't believe for a minute that the new
highway will reduce traffic congestion."

But the project's supporters say the new highway as well as the rail line and
other elements of the project would alleviate air pollution by reducing the
number of vehicle miles traveled and easing traffic congestion. Public officials
who believe their communities would benefit from the highway and the other parts
of the project are upset about the lawsuit.

They point out that the Eastern Corridor's long, public planning process
included the involvement of federal and state agencies. Last year, the project's
initial plans received the approval of the Federal Highway Administration.

"This whole region has invested a lot of time and money following federal
processes for this project," said Martha Kelly, Cincinnati's acting traffic
engineer. "It takes enough time as it is to build these things. To have to go
back and revisit processes is very frustrating."

Anderson Township Trustee Russell Jackson Jr. said he's a strong proponent of
protecting the Little Miami River. But he said the lawsuit greatly exaggerates
the proposed bridge's impact on the river.

Columbia Township Administrator C. Michael Lemon said the environmental groups'
lawsuit will delay the development of the Wooster Pike corridor in the township.

Columbia Township wants to make its Wooster Pike business district more visually
appealing by building a landscaped median. But the Ohio Department of
Transportation won't permit that until the Eastern Corridor project has been
built and reduces the traffic volume on Wooster.

Lemon said the median would help attract businesses.

Many commuters who regularly fight the traffic on Ohio 32 and other parallel
roads want relief.

Amy Willenborg, 37, of Union Township, said the new highway is long overdue.

"On Ohio 32, traffic is bumper to bumper at rush hour," she said.

Carl Wells, 34, said traffic congestion discouraged him from buying a house in
Union Township eight years ago. Instead, he bought a house in Madisonville. He
said the lawsuit shouldn't be allowed to stop or delay the construction of the
highway.

"I'm all for the environment," Wells said, "but the new highway would help
people get to and from work."

The expanded Ohio 32 would encourage more motorists from the eastern suburbs to
use Red Bank Road to get to the eastern Cincinnati neighborhoods, downtown or
the Mill Creek Valley instead of traveling on other city streets less able to
handle a high volume of traffic.

Cincinnati officials also believe it would stimulate light industrial and office
development in the Red Bank Corridor and lure more businesses to Madisonville,
Linwood and Oakley.

"It could really help bring jobs to the city," Kelly said.

The improved roadway connections with eastern Hamilton County would make daily
commutes easier for Clermont County residents who work in Hamilton County.

"It would improve access for the transportation of goods and would provide a
boost to the economic growth in Clermont County," said Clermont County
Administrator Dave Spinney.

In Anderson Township, the expanded Ohio 32 could relieve traffic congestion on
Beechmont Avenue and Clough Pike and provide a much needed additional route in
and out of Anderson.

"Anderson is somewhat of an island," Hubbard said. "If you have a problem on any
bridge or a detour in Anderson, it results in lengthy and problematic delays."

In Newtown, the new highway could relieve some of the traffic congestion that
has plagued this stretch of Ohio 32, known as Main Street, for years and allow
the village to improve the appearance of this corridor and make it more inviting
to businesses and customers.

Newtown Mayor John Hammon said the railway and bus station planned in the
village as part of the project would draw people there and be a convenience for
Newtown residents.

His only concern is that the highway might take too much traffic off Main
Street.

"So many of our businesses depend on drive-by traffic," Hammon said. "You can't
take away all the traffic. There has to be a balance. There are benefits for
Newtown if the project's done right."

The new highway would relieve traffic congestion on Wooster Pike in Fairfax,
Mariemont, Columbia Township and, to a lesser extent, Terrace Park.

Mariemont Mayor Dan Policastro said it's important to Mariemont for the highway
to be built far enough away from the Little Miami River that traffic noise
doesn't bother village residents living on Miami Bluff.

Some public officials have been hearing about the project for so long, they're
skeptical whenever a tentative completion date for the highway has been
announced.

"I don't think we're going to see this until we're old and on canes," Policastro
said. "They tell me it'll be built in 10 or 12 years. I'll believe it when I see
it."

E-mail
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...348/1056/COL02

Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

Secondly, coping an entire article verbatim is a clear violation of
copyright. Fair use would require you to quote a small amount from the
article while providing some actual content of your own. (Like perhaps
giving us the reason you posted this here in the first place.)

Cheers,
David

Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

wrote:
Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

You can say that again!

On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
relevant discussion or starter, IMO.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote in
:

On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.



In the paddling group there have been quite a few discussions regarding
motor boat traffic (and specifically how we can safely coexist). Similarly,
I would have thought that motor vehicle traffic would a rather important
issue for cyclist as well.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.


I know it would just ruin my day if someone from a newsgroup that I never
read plonked me.

Werehatrack wrote:
On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
relevant discussion or starter, IMO.


Silly me. And this looked just sooooo much like a discussion "starter"
to me.

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?

I used to ride, not too seriously, maybe 100 miles/week on roads and
trails, before I took up whitewater paddling (which showed me how
really borrrrrring road-biking is), and at the time I was a member of
something called "The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy", and we were all
about how traffic-planning issues affected bicyclists. This is no
different. It is relevant to only a tiny number of SW Ohio
trail-riders (and only a tiny number of SW Ohio boaters), but the rest
of us can (what a concept) SKIP THE FLIPPIN' ARTICLE!

Poor Garrison. He thought you morons in rec.bicycles.misc (and what,
pray tell, do you imagine the "misc" indicates?) would still be
interested in things like the way traffic decisions affect bike trails.
He publishes bags of articles on rec.boats.paddle that won't interest
*me* very much until the day comes that I float down the Ohio river on
my way from Washington (DC) to Washington (state), but are valuable to
anyone who boats in the Cincinnati area. Oddly, though, I don't jump
all over him and whine about "staying on topic". I just scan his
articles and go on. No harm, no foul. 'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in
ps.com:

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?


I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
would have been fine.

'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
quote above to be quite ironic.

Cheers,
David

Garrison Hilliard wrote:

.... actually he posted an article about promoting sprawl under the
guise of relieving car traffic congestion via road construction.

The answer, Garrison, is not to promote more car traffic. You need only
look at places like Atlanta, GA and Va. Beach, VA to see how more roads
simply mean exponential increases in car traffic. The answer is to
redirect the funds into light rail.