Re: highways to tomorrow

[Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>]

I see it much more simple terms:
Do we want a major interstate--with the accompanying
fast food/truck stop/Super 8 development that
inevitably accompanies it--running through rural Idaho
or not?
I disagree. 
What we need for 95 is safety improvements.
Improvements that will allow safe present and slightly
increased traffic for the future. 
What we don't need is an interstate that will
encourage an exponential increase in traffic through
our area.
I'm not sure why, but an old Joni Mitchell
chorus-"pave paradise put up a parking lot," keeps
running through my mind.
If this is "not in my back yard-ism"(NIMBY) that's
fine with me. Let the interstate go through someone
else's backyard--someone who either welcomes it or is
not willing to outspokenly oppose it. NIMBYism has
gotten and undeservedly bad name. I believe we need
much more of it--not just in Idaho, but all over the
world. 
TL

--- Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com> wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com