By HERBERT P. READ

As an architect with almost 60 years’ experience working in Indiana and Illinois, I have also been involved periodically with community and regional land planning. This responsibility often requires balancing competing economic, social, and environmental interests, a task demanding both judgment and technical expertise.

Regarding the proposed South Shore Railroad commuter extensions, I could offer opinions on both sides of the issue. I will not address the contentious issue of taxes and financing except to note that all forms of transportation benefit directly or indirectly from subsidies. Many of these transportation forms I do not use.

Instead, I will comment on some environmental aspects, specifically “sprawl,” a misunderstood term, but generally meaning the tendency for people to move from cities into rural areas. The anti-sprawl advocates must realize that not everyone wants to live in a city. But there is a significant difference between a residence on several acres, and a 50-house subdivision on a far-out cornfield.

As long as population in Northwest Indiana continues to increase, particularly toward the south, there will be pressure to develop our remaining open spaces with or without the South Shore extension. In Porter County, large subdivisions continue to be planned, served only by two-lane county roads, which are insufficient for current traffic.

Land use is controlled by recommendations from the Plan Commission and as finalized by the County Commissioners.

The Porter County Master Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance encourage development near existing urban centers, and include open space set-asides. But maintaining these objectives depends upon support from citizens and public officials. If you wait until the earthmover is outside your window, it is too late.

Recently you published a guest commentary written on behalf of the Sierra Club Dunelands Group in opposition to the South Shore railroad commuter extension. The comments expressed support for preserving “greenfields” and for less reliance on automobiles. In this I concur, and have spent most of my life advocating. But the reasoning behind the objections of the Duneland Group of the Sierra Club to rail commuting totally escapes me.

In fact, it seems topsy-turvy to me. Rail transportation is generally recognized as more energy efficient, reduces dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and causes less air pollution. New development tends to concentrate around railroad stations, which, depending on your interests, can be good or bad.

In any event, your local government is the deciding factor. I emphasize that these observations are my own and do not reflect the opinions of any organizations to which I belong. I hope I have injected some civilized discourse to the issue.

Posted 2/7/2008