[Vision2020] Critical Mass, A Public Menace! Inconvenient Truth -- What WE gonna do

[david sarff]

     Sunil,
Generally, we have roads in order to aid commerce. This level of engineering 
for US 95 is precisely designed to increase productivity.
  I think what is really being suggested here is the wish for a “change” in 
growth and development from and old model to a more supportable future 
model. It could be suggested that the present configuration of the 95 four 
lane supports and continues an imbalanced one sided form of development.
It does seem that improved efficiency for any kind of transportation mode 
inherently increases activities related to the “type” of improvement. 
Perhaps it is more of an out of control “Transit-adjacent development” some 
of us are concerned about than actual “ Transit oriented development”.  I 
certainly do not want to see the "Post Falls Effect” happen here…seems to be 
happening anyway though.
I’d be a whole lot happier if the new 95 included a distinct alternative 
transportation provision.

Perhaps this article is related: http://www.issues.org/19.1/belzer.htm

D Sarff

>
>Ted,
>
>Why do you think that by itself a four-lane highway between Moscow and
>Lewiston will lead to greater development?  What sort of development are 
>you
>talking about?
>
>I don't think this one factor will make a difference in terms of 
>development
>by itself, or increase fuel use, unless all the cars end up driving
>considerably faster; I doubt this will happen, given what I have seen and
>know about the way the road is patrolled, so I don't accept your statement
>that it will lead to increased fossil fuel use.
>
>If you can explain to me why you think this is so, I'm willing to consider
>what you're saying, but I'm not going to jump to that conclusion.  At this
>point you've offered it as a conclusion, with no reasons for it.  If you
>want me to address it, please provide some reasons that back up your
>conclusion.
>
>There are people both in the Valley and in Moscow who live in one place and
>work in the other, and have no interest in living in the town in which they
>work.  From '97 to '05, I worked full-time in Lewiston and lived here; now
>I'm transitioning to working here most of the time.
>
>During the years I commuted, I had no interest in living in Lewiston.  I'm
>not knocking Lewiston (in case Dick or Tony  are out there), I just like
>living here more.  And I know lots of folks in the Valley who hate Moscow
>and don't want to live here.  It's a bearable commute, an easy one by
>California standards, and there will always be some people willing to make
>it if gas costs don't skyrocket.  But it's inconvenient enough that I don't
>think herds of people are going to decide to live here and work there (or
>vice versa) just because the highway is four lanes now.
>
>So what is it about a four-lane highway that will increase development?  
>Why
>should this conclusion be accepted on its face?  What will change in either
>the Valley economy or the Moscow economy because the road is wider?  I have
>no reason right now to assume that this particular highway improvement will
>lead to greater development and the associated increase in emissions, 
>absent
>some other changes or factors.
>
>I've said nothing in my posts to suggest that I think CO2 doesn't affect
>global warning, so I'm confused that you'd attribute such an opinion to me;
>I have no idea what your basis for this is.  I do think there's a
>connection.  I haven't disagreed with what you are saying about encouraging
>alternative transportation; I disagree with the value of pissing off 
>drivers
>to make a point.
>
>My view on that point is similar to my view on flag burning.  I defend the
>right to do either; I just think the method fails to win any converts, and
>if that's your goal, it's a poor way to make your point.
>
>OK, this has got to put me at the limit, so I'm out.
>
>Sunil
>
>
> >From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
> >To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>,
> >"vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Critical Mass, A Public Menace! Inconvenient
> >Truth -- What WE gonna do
> >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:27:16 -0700
> >
> >Sunil-et. al.
> >
> >You so completely missed the point of one of my questions, a point 
>critical
> >to the whole discussion on the value of promoting cycling, I will abuse 
>the
> >list with a brief response that places me way over the daily post limit.
> >
> >Sunil wrote:
> >
> >As for 95, I think extra lanes will make the drive safer.  If it leads to
> >economic expansion, I don't object to that.
> >-------
> >
> >My question on this matter could not have more unambiguous.  I queried,
> >paraphrased, will the expansion of the Moscow/Pullman Hwy. and Hwy. 95
> >result in increasing amounts of traffic and fossil fuel use?  The
> >primary focus of this entire discussion on Critical Mass is how to reduce
> >fossil fuel use, at least from my perspective.  If you don't think global
> >warming from increasing levels of human sourced CO2 is a problem, just 
>say
> >so.  But when increasing levels of fossil fuel use are associated with
> >development, please address the issue, don't ignore it.
> >
> >I think there is no debate that these highway expansions will increase
> >local
> >fossil fuel use.  It just remains to decide if this contribution to 
>global
> >warming is justified.  Or we could back up and discuss if human sourced 
>CO2
> >emissions are contributing to damaging climate change from global 
>warming,
> >though it appears a number of Vision2020 subscribers recognize the
> >overwhelming scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions, a large amount
> >of
> >which come from cars and light trucks, are inducing potentially
> >catastrophic
> >climate change.
> >
> >Ted Moffett
>
>