Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marshall is buying the Douglas Center for medical outreach. It'll be interesting to see if they try to connect that with the Forensics/Medical campus by purchasing everything in between.
The new Marshall Engineering Building is about to open. This is a beautiful building that will be a great asset to the Engineering Program and Marshall. Some interesting quotes from the article:
Zatar said that 100 percent of Marshall University graduates who have taken the exam have passed it, and that is the academic base on which the complex was constructed.
"It puts us into a category that I don't think any other institutions in the region are at," he said. "It's hard to get to the top and maintain a position at the top, but over the past two, two and a half years, it has been systematic that we did not have a student who failed the exam."
Quote:
The three-story lab is equipped with hydraulic pumps, a 20-ton crane, a "strong" floor to accommodate heavy testing as well as a similar L-shaped strong wall.
Zatar said universities in the region have similar labs with strong floors, but Marshall's strong wall was a feature unique among schools within a 250-mile radius.
The strong floor is made of durable concrete flooring and is supported by piles that go more than 50 feet into the bedrock below, and the wall has similar support.
The lab will allow for Myth Busters-like testing of the durability of things like steel beams and even entire bridges, Zatar said.
Most definitely. Growth for Marshall and Huntington is growth for the state and that's a good thing. That building was most certainly a solid investment. Hopefully the next president will continue Dr Kopp's vision and continue the growth for Marshall.
I would like to see more growth but I think just as much focus needs to be given to the existing programs and buildings to make sure they are on solid footing. Some of the buildings on campus are in need of renovation and updating. I believe Marshall has a great selection of offerings right now and should be doing everything possible to keep them growing.
I also think that the university needs to examine the existing programs/majors to see if any programs are no longer needed. There may not be any programs in need of being shut down but I think it's a good idea to examine them from time to time.
Echoing the concerns Aeros stated, and not wanting to appear negative, I have to ask how they intend to pay for all of this? Keep in mind that even though they got a major shot of state funds for the construction of the Engineering complex and football indoor facility ($32.5 million in total), state subsidies for higher education are in downward trend overall, and although enrollment has increased slightly, 200 or 300 new students are not going to be able to provide much in the way of increased funding when the added expense of operating these new programs they have put in place are taken into account. That money has to come from somewhere, and some I have spoken with are saying it is basically being taken from other, existing programs. While that might bode well for developing a Civil Engineering bachelors program, or a Pharmacy program, it doesn't look too good if you are in one of the disciplines taking a hit to support them. The athletic program alone lost $15.1 million last year, and monies to support that in part came from the school's general revenue funds. You can only rob Peter to pay Paul so long.
There is no need to touch the driving lanes 3rd and 5th avenues unless it's to pave them. The traffic is already bad enough at times with 4 lanes and reducing that to 3 lanes is a very bad idea. It would only add to more traffic nightmares.
Adding a bus cut our or two could help and there is potential space along both 3rd and 5th, in the campus area, for those to be built.
The University, along with the City, County and State should be looking into installing more pedestrian bridges and enforcing the speed limit and ticketing for jaywalking to reduce the danger to both drivers and pedestrians.
There is no need to touch the driving lanes 3rd and 5th avenues unless it's to pave them. The traffic is already bad enough at times with 4 lanes and reducing that to 3 lanes is a very bad idea. It would only add to more traffic nightmares.
You know, not too long ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. However, after really digging deep into urban development and doing a lot of my own research, I have made some other conclusions. Traffic is certainly a concern, but from looking at other similar projects, it won't be as bad as you might imagine. One thing to keep in mind is that traffic flow doesn't take into account the fact that traveling through one-way street systems often means taking a circuitous route, which adds distance to every trip. This can create extra traffic and longer distances for vehicular travel. Outside of that there are a lot of benefits to two-way streets:
Livability: vehicles stop less on one-way streets, which is hard for bikers and pedestrians.
Navigation: one-way street networks are confusing for drivers, which leads to more vehicle-miles traveled; they also make it tough for bus riders to locate stops for a return trip.
Safety: speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets, and some studies suggest drivers pay less attention on them because there's no conflicting traffic flow.
Economics: local businesses believe that two-way streets increase visibility.
Finally, if traffic is still an issue, then Huntington might consider investing into better public transit. I know that comes with its own problems, with a lack of population being one of them. If it is done well enough, then population won't really matter.
You know, not too long ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. However, after really digging deep into urban development and doing a lot of my own research, I have made some other conclusions. Traffic is certainly a concern, but from looking at other similar projects, it won't be as bad as you might imagine. One thing to keep in mind is that traffic flow doesn't take into account the fact that traveling through one-way street systems often means taking a circuitous route, which adds distance to every trip. This can create extra traffic and longer distances for vehicular travel. Outside of that there are a lot of benefits to two-way streets:
Livability: vehicles stop less on one-way streets, which is hard for bikers and pedestrians.
Navigation: one-way street networks are confusing for drivers, which leads to more vehicle-miles traveled; they also make it tough for bus riders to locate stops for a return trip.
Safety: speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets, and some studies suggest drivers pay less attention on them because there's no conflicting traffic flow.
Economics: local businesses believe that two-way streets increase visibility.
Finally, if traffic is still an issue, then Huntington might consider investing into better public transit. I know that comes with its own problems, with a lack of population being one of them. If it is done well enough, then population won't really matter.
I applaud absolutely all of this.
And I'm not anti-car (I drive about 85 miles round trip every day for work). It's the fact that a car-centric street network will prevent any future growth of the urban area in this day and age. One of the biggest problems is that it isn't socially equitable. Not everyone has access to a personal vehicle and if we shape our built environment around vehicles, then we are alienating a sizeable portion of our population. This goes beyond inconveniencing college freshman; systems like this block socioeconomic upward mobility as the lack of transportation drastically decreases one's ability to get and keep a job. This is but one factor to localized poverty, but a contributing one nonetheless.
It's never quite so simple, but in the broadest terms, if you build a city for cars, you'll get more cars and traffic. If you build a city for people, you'll get people. The trick is to balance out the transportation modes so people can get to town easily and around town easily. What we don't want is to create the quickest way through town. Yeah, it can be nice to hit every green light at 55 mph, but a city street shouldn't act as a highway. As a city, the priority should be creating a place in which people want to maximize spending their time and money. An ironic part of the death of many cities in this country is that they tried to recreate the mall shopping experience. But guess what? That already existed in malls! They tried to replicate this but failed and instead shot themselves in the foot by destroying the tight-knit urban fabric to which people are now returning (see many compact, cohesive urban places, such as Boston, Asheville, DC, etc.). Huntington still has a wealth of heirlooms from its golden years and can build on those to create an attractive place, incorporating a wide variety of transportation modes and, hopefully, a wide variety of people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
