Olympian Drive Project
As a longtime Urbana resident, I have numerous apprehensions about the possible Olympian Drive extension. It seems our hard earned, tax payer dollars could be better spent fixing the roads we already have, not building a new one significantly north of the average Urbanite's normal path. But, a recent article (http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2010-08-22/i-74...) and user comments have made me think about my objections. With a seemingly greater occurrence of vehicular accidents on I-74, maybe a road offering a different route would lessen cross town traffic on the highway, thus lessening the number of accidents. What are your thoughts? Do you think Olympian Drive would help reduce the traffic volume on I-74, making travel safer? Or do you believe our tax dollars are better spent elsewhere?
The Olympian Drive project
The Olympian Drive project has been in the works for 20 years. The north end of CU has absolutely no arterial roads that traverse the entire city. Bradley ends at Lincoln and semi trucks cannot go around Busey Woods. In addition, on the north side of I-74, there are NO arterial roads that travel across the city.
I am old enough to remember people making these same arguments about the detention basin on campus. The detention basin was deemed a folly---spending all that money to prevent flooding wouldn't make a bit of difference. Since the detention basin was built, we've had all kinds of development and growth in the former flood-prone areas.
But perhaps even more similar are all the arguments against building Windsor across town many years ago. People said "who the hell would build way out in the country" and "why are we spend money to make a four-lane road in the middle of nowhere. Now, 20 years later, we are just *now* completing that entire stretch of road to be four lanes all the way across town. And development along that road is nearly complete except where the U of I owns it and they have plans for a development in that area in the future.
My *personal* opinion is that a few renters shouldn't get to decide how an entire community develops. If I'm renting an apartment, can I myself hold up a road project on my street? And if not, why do those few individuals on the edge of the city---and, let's be frank, a few hundred feet outside city limits is not rural, it's suburban---get to derail a project when they don't own the land and apparently didn't even bother to do any research prior to starting their farm in that location?
And, finally, if a road similar to Windsor Rd. a few hundred feet from them is so disturbing to their goats, why isn't I-57 disturbing to them?
The whole deal is quite surprising to me. I've been waiting 20 years for a road that would cross the entire city on the north end of town. Now, it appears we'll wait another 20 years.
My parting thought is this: when my father lived here, Mattis was a country road. Times. Change.
Gamera's discussion is not
Gamera's discussion is not compelling.
That Olympian Drive has been pondered for for 20 years does not make it a good idea today.
Gamera's discussion of the retention basin (a flood control project) is irrelevant, because flood control is not an issue in the Olympian Drive debate.
The Windsor Road opponents could not imagine anyone building there. In contrast, the Windsor Road opponents question whether the subsequent development is a positive. Gamera provides no arguments that such development would be a positive.
Gamera needs to realize that anyone, renter or landowner, merits a voice in this debate.
Gamera fictionalizes that Olympian Drive would disturb any goats--no one has suggested this.
"Olympian" actually means two
"Olympian" actually means two or three different things. There's the part near Duncan, there's the part from Apollo Drive to Lincoln, and there's Lincoln to Route 45. And then there's the improvement to North Lincoln which a vast majority of people prefer to extending Olympian out to Route 45. And opinion changes pretty greatly when you talk about just the individual pieces, which is why Mayor Prussing prefers to treat it all as one big indivisible project.
So asking "are you for it or against it" misses the point. The people I talk to are pretty sure they're for it from Apollo to Lincoln and against it from Lincoln to Route 45 unless they stand to personally profit from it. The question is whether Urbana and the County Board are going to be smart enough to consider the pieces separately. It looks like the County Board is already leaning in that direction.
I think that proponents of the complete build-out do themselves absolutely no favors when they condescendingly claim that opponents of the Lincoln to Route 45 part are only trying to save a goat farm.
I honestly can't believe
I honestly can't believe we're STILL talking about Olympian Drive. Mayor Prussing is exactly right about this. If Urbana is ever to grow and develop, this is imperative, and it should have been built years ago. The 19th Century was great, but it's time to move on.The future is not in goat farms
Charles Chaplin's post is
Charles Chaplin's post is most unconvincing:
"If Urbana is to grow and develop...." A naive repetition of the mantra "grow and develop" is not convincing. What do you mean by grow and develop? And why would such even be desirable?
"The 19th Century was great, but it's time to move on." This statement is confusing. Many recent studies have affirmed the value of open space in today's world.
"The future is not in goat farms." Why would/should one believe this?. There is a growing movement in the nation for locally produced food.
Selguy seems to be devoid of
Selguy seems to be devoid of an opinion, only unconvinced by the word choices of those who are not. Or maybe we can conclude he likes open space and goats, although neither -- unlike tax base or jobs -- seems to be in particularly short supply.
Charles Chaplin seems unable
Charles Chaplin seems unable to explain and justify his statements, and only ineffectively attempt to mock those who point this out.
you seem like the type of guy
you seem like the type of guy who would like bike paths. to build those bike paths you need tax dollars.. therefore growth & development = more bike paths
open space?? we live in central illinois. drive ten miles from the center of urbana in any direction and see where you end up. there is plenty of room for development while maintaining "open space"
and i like buying the cheapest goat milk possible, i don't care where it comes from
Bike paths are useful on
Bike paths are useful on university campuses and places with a similar density of bicycle use, and on roads with high speed and volume of vehicular traffic (such as Windsor Rd). Bicycle paths are not justified in other places such as downtown Urbana. Examples of locally useless bicycle paths are First St just south of University, and Philo Road near Sunnycrest.
Do you think Olympian Drive
Do you think Olympian Drive would help reduce the traffic volume on I-74, making travel safer? It certainly will not increase I-74 traffic, but how much of a decrease is speculation. My guess would be at most 2-3%, not enough to justify Olympian Drive. But subsequent development along Olympian Drive would increase traffic there, making it a less desirable I-74 alternative
Except the unquantified, generic "It swill help economic growth" arguments, there have been no arguments for the project
The article about traffic
The article about traffic problems on I74 outlined issues all along the stretch from Danville to CU, so Olympian won't effect safety much. Why not drop the speed limit and slow down through traffic on I 74 from University to I 57 for safety sake as that is a real concern. As for north of I 74, I suggest we think of progressive rural development, such as holding the line on encroachment of productive land and local foods development, and consider that our problem is competing development interests. We, however, just don't get hard evidence of the industrial projects and needs in support of Olympian. Also, the Urbana Mayor and her staff are bold and arbitrary in declarations we will have a throughway Olympian. The enormous amount for a PR campaign to make us see their way is wasteful and even offensive. Surely Mr. Atkins and other businesses can give the public enough idea of their plans so we can decide whether it is wise spending. Rolling through and over rural development for the sake of development of Urbana's industrial aspirations clearly is a source of our opposition including Urbanaites. If you noticed 11 staffers from government agencies signed a letter in the NG recently in support of Olympian. It is stunning evidence which seems to show that 11 agencies and their employees plus contractors, plus city and county planners are engaged, wastefully costing us an easy 1 million a year to convince us we love a concrete channel like Windsor on our north side. Urbana officials are publicly contemptuous of rural interests, so it seems impossible to compromise to blend rural and industrial futures. Of course, better minds than mine believe Olympian is right. So when you build it, do me a favor and put up an observation deck on the bridge over the RR tracks so I can take my grandkids to watch for trains.
Social Media
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.