highways to tomorrow

[Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>]

This message is submitted by Evan Holmes.

Dear Subscribers;

The comments about U.S. 95 have given me much to think about. Thank you.

Everybody has a legitimate, rational and widely defended viewpoint about
the highway-freeway-traffic issue. These viewpoints are visionary,
shortsighted, self-centered, caring, dangerous and benign. There is a
sublime value in these competing points of view. They are a window into
each of us that reveals how we prioritize. If we dare to look through the
windows, our own and each others, then we can begin to solve the two
over-riding puzzles we face. Namely, what are the acceptable limits to
change in our community and how can we prevent accidentally exceeding them?
   Some of the factors being considered here are driving safety, travel
time, rural setting, appropriate land use, pace of life, access, noise,
vehicle numbers, economics of overland shipping, air pollution, resource
consumption and tax base. There are more. The test we can apply to each
viewpoint, to help us see into each other's windows, is to ask which of
these factors are given primary roles in the thought/planning process and
which are subordinated. In other words, which do we design for and which do
we allow to fall into place within the design?
   The picture I see in the local crystal ball is really quite murky. But
if we, individually and collectively, will begin to define what we believe
to be the limits to acceptable change, then that crystal ball will begin to
show us something. I've long believed that the issue of roads and traffic
is a great place to begin the journey into a proactive future. Should we
carpool?