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

[Sunil Ramalingam]

I should say that I would have been happy with two or three more passing 
lanes on this stretch of road; I think that would have addressed safety 
concerns.  I don't want to see Post Falls-type development here either; I 
think the most likely place we're going to see it is along the 
Moscow-Pullman highway.  I think we're too far off the beaten path to see it 
elsewhere, though I could be wrong.

I'm not championing a certain type of development here.

Sunil


>From: "david sarff" <davesway at hotmail.com>
>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Critical Mass, A Public Menace! Inconvenient 
>Truth -- What WE gonna do
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:35:43 +0000
>
>
>     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
>