<div> </div>
<div>Sunil-et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You so completely missed the point of one of my questions, a point critical to the whole discussion on the value of promoting cycling, I will abuse the list with a brief response that places me way over the daily post limit.
<br> </div>
<div>Sunil wrote:<br><br>As for 95, I think extra lanes will make the drive safer. If it leads to<br>economic expansion, I don't object to that. </div>
<div>-------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My question on this matter could not have more unambiguous. I queried, paraphrased, will the expansion of the Moscow/Pullman Hwy. and Hwy. 95 result in increasing amounts of traffic and fossil fuel use? The primary focus of this entire discussion on Critical Mass is how to reduce fossil fuel use, at least from my perspective. If you don't think global warming from increasing levels of human sourced CO2 is a problem, just say so. But when increasing levels of fossil fuel use are associated with development, please address the issue, don't ignore it.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think there is no debate that these highway expansions will increase local fossil fuel use. It just remains to decide if this contribution to global warming is justified. Or we could back up and discuss if human sourced CO2 emissions are contributing to damaging climate change from global warming, though it appears a number of Vision2020 subscribers recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions, a large amount of which come from cars and light trucks, are inducing potentially catastrophic climate change.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>