Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal

[mgeary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Part of what I'm interested in is trying to use PMAR to pave the way for smaller alternative fueled vehicles. The renovations for Hwy 130 are essentially, I believe, going to spend $56 million to build a dinosaur. A roadway designed for low milage V-8 engines, choked with traffic lights and nearly useless in a power outage or disaster.

PMAR may be our one place where some innovation can take place. The single most important feature, in my opinion, would be for PMAR to be no commercial traffic allowed and no commercial development allowed. That's the basic definition of a parkway. Keeping the heavy vehicles off that route gives smaller alternative cars a chance. There is a small car being developed which runs on compressed air. I want one.

---

With respect, Rob, you're mixing apples and oranges, Rob. A conventional roadway (of whichever route best fits the needs, costs, etc.) is one thing. Choosing to mandate fuel efficiency standards is a completely different thing, as California found out recently. A light rail system is a different thing, too, as is a ferry system a la Seattle, hovercraft, pod racers, and warp drive vehicles. (Just a little "levity", ahem... ;-)

Focus, focus, focus is my suggestion. If you propose a conventional roadway thru HPP for the PMAR, let others worry about compressed air vehicles, or take that up as a separate issue in a separate forum. Current traffic standards, as far as I'm aware, don't distinguish between low-mileage or high-mileage types of vehicles for road width, number of lights per mile, grade, siderails, etc.

Aloha! ;-)