[Vision2020] My Column / Megaloads & Hippies
starbliss at gmail.com
Wed Jun 8 10:46:03 PDT 2011
On 6/8/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
"On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone here address his main point,
i.e. that the highways are public and the need for a special permit
because of large load size shouldn't be used as an excuse to
discriminate against businesses that some people disagree with."
But in this thread issues regarding the local impacts of the
mega-loads, that relate to the concerns of some regarding whether or
not permits should be granted, were addressed, that were not focused
on "discriminating" against any specific business for reasons other
than the local impacts, as you can read in full at this website:
Kenneth Marcy kmmos1 at frontier.com
Tue Jun 7 12:54:24 PDT 2011
"If the megaloads are allowed to roll along Highway 95 at night, other truckers
with their loads will avoid Highway 95 at night and drive during the daytime.
Whether they will choose Highway 95 or Washington's 195 between Spokane and
Lewiston may depend on whether they must deliver along Highway 95. However, an
increase in total daytime traffic, truck and all others, appears inevitable.
More north-south traffic will have more effects on Moscow's east-west traffic,
especially at times when school days and work days begin and end for many.
These increases in traffic congestion will lead to more need for
in the form of control lights, street lights, signage, and other appurtenances
of more active arterials and busier byways. Kid-friendlier sidewalks might
become more popular. In other words, megaloads likely mean more transportation
infrastructure control dollars will be at least considered for expenditure.
Secondary and tertiary effects may be somewhat premature for discussion, but
changing traffic patterns and volumes can have property value effects,
have property tax effects. These coupled with general conditions affecting the
real estate markets may raise uncertainties and related effects as a result."
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> On 06/08/2011 12:18 AM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Note he does not address any of the objections expressed on
>> Vision2020, to the facts or logic in his column, in his response on
> On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone here address his main point,
> i.e. that the highways are public and the need for a special permit
> because of large load size shouldn't be used as an excuse to
> discriminate against businesses that some people disagree with.
> I'm not necessarily behind giving the megaloads a free pass, since I
> think that Sunil's points about the noise and the lack of public input
> at the council meeting are good ones, but I do think that if people here
> object to the Kearl oil sands project there are better ways of
> expressing that opinion than to throw bureaucratic roadblocks (no pun
> intended) in their way just because we have the opportunity to do so.
More information about the Vision2020