Becoming An "Urban County"

I heard a conversation today where the participants, clearly very pro PDR (that is Lexington's Purchase of Development Rights program) spoke of the council representation for the 12^th district. I believe that the exact words were that “the rural interests of the 12^th district have not been represented since Gloria Martin left office”. That is just the facts of living in a continually urbanizing county and the willing move to raise the minimum lot size for residential use.

Fayette County has twelve council districts which, by charter, are supposed to be nearly equal in population based on the latest Census figures. Even in the early days of merger, that meant including a good portion of the suburban neighborhoods.

Lexington chose to become a very compact city, when in 1958 they imposed a urban growth boundary (USA), actually the very first in the nation. It was designed to bring on orderly, cost efficient development and prevent dispersing services widely throughout the county. Many of its objectives did as designed but some such as our trunk sewer system could have used some better estimates on sizing.

At about the same time the local health department recognized that septic systems in the rural areas would need larger lots in order to function correctly and imposed a 10 acre minimum on all new development outside the growth boundary. This, of course, would bring the overall residential density of the rural area lower over time without other influences coming into play.

But other influences did come into play, in the form of “agricultural” subdivisions for those wishing for a place in the country. Ten acre plots springing up all over the county for housing a family looking for basically a status symbol house and little more. Farmland being used for fewer and fewer people and no agricultural production of any kind. Actually a worse type of sprawl than paving it all over and building shopping centers on it. The rural character was lost as well as the loss of density.

The authors of the merger charter desired to live up to the spirit of the Urban Service Area concept by designating one council district, the 12^th, to be as rural as they could make it. Unfortunately, that meant including enough of the urban subdivisions to bring the district population proportionate to 1/12^th of the county. To accomplish that a large part of the long established USA was required to be included.

By now it should be easy to see that, electing a representative in an area which will only grow more urban and expect that representative, being responsive to his constituents, to remain totally rural focused. A council member elected every two years, a district adjusted every ten years and the trend toward increasing urbanization can only mean a loss of rural influence.

It may be this loss of influence that these folks were speaking of which will play a part in the ongoing onslaught toward PDR.

Many people are beginning to feel that, in these days of increasing budgets and falling revenues, PDR is a luxury that we can no longer afford. I have heard it said that PDR is paying property owners for development rights on land that cannot be developed as it is.

This is not to say that a major thoroughbred farm operation or the Horse Park/Keeneland type places is not fully developed, because they obviously are. But should we pay for these “developed” farms to NOT develop? The Council's last few budget battles have brought more and more pressure to bear on the viability of continuing to fund PDR.

Gloria Martin was a championing force behind PDR and the increase to 40 acre minimum lot size as well as the 300 foot setback for rural houses, and failing any rural influence since her departure, PDR may be in real trouble. This year will see a district race in which PDR will probably have a good showdown. The real rural dweller in the race is set on dismantling the existing program and the suburbanite candidate may not be able to fund its continuance.

We are marching on to becoming an urban county.

Regional Rail Topic Comes Up Again

I am quite unsure just why this has not made an appearance on the Kentucky.com site yet, but the State Journal in Frankfort reported last week on a proposal for commuter service between Lexington and Louisville. Two trains, each running in three times a day, from Winchester to Louisville with stops in Lexington and Frankfort and (get this) in place by October of 2012.

Wow, with a blockbuster announcement like this one would think that the Herald-Leader would be all over this. Passenger service to the state capital and Louisville three times a day. Estimated cost to Frankfort is a low, low $8 one way. R. J. Corman and CSX would make a bundle on this and add in the stop proposed at Keeneland and there would be nothing stopping these guys.

There is nothing more that I would love to see than passenger rail to both Louisville and Cincinnati on a regular basis, but I see this path being fraught with delays and legal trouble. I think that we are too late in beginning this effort and that the advocate pushing it is dreaming about the eventual cost of start up.

To date route to be used has been known as the “Old Road” to many of Kentucky rail buffs and the majority of it is now leased and used by Corman as a freight route. From what have read of the agreement approved by the Surface Transportation Board, CSX has limited Corman to basically the weekly aluminum ingot trains and sand, cement and some general merchandise runs. The latest addendum, I believe is the ability to haul material for the repair and maintenance of the railroad so that they can facilitate their side of the federal “TIGER” grant of $17,551,028. This project is known as the Appalachian Regional Shortline Project. CSX has not allowed any revenue passenger service over this line and has shown reluctance to even talk about it.

The trackage from Winchester to Anchorage, Ky. Is outside the normally defined Appalachian Region, so I wonder if it is the focus of the grant work as the intent is to refurbish roads in Ky., Tenn. and W. Va.

The person behind this proposal, is the new industrial recruiter in Frankfort. A local position for the city, not a state position. It is noted that he has extensive background in rail planning, both stateside and in Iraq, but there seems to be major gaps in his gathering of fundamental existing conditions.

The article states that a stop is intended to be placed at Keeneland which currently has no rail spur. The closest rail line crosses the Van Meter Rd., about a mile from the back gate of Keeneland and surrounded by horse farms. This line is owned by Corman, but it is the line which goes to Versailles, not Frankfort The “Old Road” crosses S. Yarnallton Rd nearly 5 miles distant and although there used to be a flag stop there, it has long since been transferred to private ownership.

This hindrance will also plague the announced intention of the owner of Greenbrier Resort to run a special trainset from the resort to Keeneland, and back, as part of their strategic partnership to pull in the high rollers of gambling. Theirs may be larger in scope as there is no direct route from Huntington, W. VA to Lexington and they will have to route through Cincinnati. A time consuming trip, nearly 10 hours, as I have recounted here before.

The price tag and time frame are also a question in most folks mind. Those knowledgeable rail fans, from whom I have heard, all question the validity of $40 million to upgrade the track and build stations. Then there is the cost of personnel and operations. Many larger cities which have regional rail, still have to have subsidies which run into the millions, and they have much larger commuting populations. 80 to 90 mile an hour travel between Lexington and Louisville is a possible goal and one that we should have reached long before now. (Wait, we did. Back in the ‘70s when they completed the Interstate.)

80 to 90 mile an hour rail travel between Lexington and Louisville is still a ways off.