05-14-2009, 12:07 PM
With roads population is not the issue, but rather how much of population drives, and how much they drive. This is a traffic issue at its core. Already the cost of fuel has impacted driver habits. We've forgotten pretty quickly that we were paying close to 5 dollars a gallon a year ago and driving on the island was way down. I've heard figures like 30 percent, but have no way to validate that. Perhaps someone else has better information.
Population is project to grow, by whom, and on what data?
Money spent on roads is not spent elsewhere. I don't have a problem with roads per se, but that's not my point in being the persistent fly in the ointment. My point is this: money comes from somewhere. It's not unlimited. There may be better places with more pressing need to use it than in road building. There may be more effective ways of ameliorating traffic issues than road building. There are real needs here locally, and I hate to see resources pissed away on poorly considered agendas. As I see it, the conversation isn't about if roads should be built, only when and where and that's a nothing short of a fallacious omission. Huge, huge questions are begged here. Lastly, because we live in a world where policy planners from the economy to the climate to road building have almost without exception screwed up and boxed their populations into a corner by refusing to look at real questions and real issues, and have basically comfortably assumed far too much. Who could have possibly foreseen the outcome of all this, they ask. Of course there's WMD's in Iraq, its a fact! GMAC bonds are AAA, of course! Don't worry about your pension. . .Who could have known?
Well, plenty: plenty did, and do. My main purpose is to document that yet again. No one needs to agree with my synopsis of where the future is headed if they've got better information and better ideas. If however, the basic and fundamental issues pertinent to the discussion are completely ignored, well, that's a wholly other issue. I don't have a problem with disagreement. Disagreement is constructive, assuming both parties to the disagreement are interested in resolution. Outright denial of important issues that face us--and good solutions to those real issues--is another matter.
We can resolve traffic by building more roads, but ultimately that isn't a sustainable plan, as roads beget more roads. We would save a lot of money by moving towards a less consumptive future with less driving. I personally would drive less, a LOT less, if there was real public transit, or bike lanes that one could ride without getting killed. Both are cheap solutions compared to 20 miles of road, and at least should be considered.
Population is project to grow, by whom, and on what data?
Money spent on roads is not spent elsewhere. I don't have a problem with roads per se, but that's not my point in being the persistent fly in the ointment. My point is this: money comes from somewhere. It's not unlimited. There may be better places with more pressing need to use it than in road building. There may be more effective ways of ameliorating traffic issues than road building. There are real needs here locally, and I hate to see resources pissed away on poorly considered agendas. As I see it, the conversation isn't about if roads should be built, only when and where and that's a nothing short of a fallacious omission. Huge, huge questions are begged here. Lastly, because we live in a world where policy planners from the economy to the climate to road building have almost without exception screwed up and boxed their populations into a corner by refusing to look at real questions and real issues, and have basically comfortably assumed far too much. Who could have possibly foreseen the outcome of all this, they ask. Of course there's WMD's in Iraq, its a fact! GMAC bonds are AAA, of course! Don't worry about your pension. . .Who could have known?
Well, plenty: plenty did, and do. My main purpose is to document that yet again. No one needs to agree with my synopsis of where the future is headed if they've got better information and better ideas. If however, the basic and fundamental issues pertinent to the discussion are completely ignored, well, that's a wholly other issue. I don't have a problem with disagreement. Disagreement is constructive, assuming both parties to the disagreement are interested in resolution. Outright denial of important issues that face us--and good solutions to those real issues--is another matter.
We can resolve traffic by building more roads, but ultimately that isn't a sustainable plan, as roads beget more roads. We would save a lot of money by moving towards a less consumptive future with less driving. I personally would drive less, a LOT less, if there was real public transit, or bike lanes that one could ride without getting killed. Both are cheap solutions compared to 20 miles of road, and at least should be considered.