At 12:37 PM 02/04/2003 -0600, Ann Freiwald wrote: >This is not very bike related, but just to let you know.
>I heard from a >planner today that the State (and I assume the Feds) are looking to make >I-90 from the stateline to Madison [two lanes wider than it currently is]. The improvement is planned for 7 to >10 years out. When do we stop trying to build out way out of traffic >congestion? To which Chuck responded: > certainly it's bike related. the interstates are already huge barriers to citizens that choose to travel by means other than automobiles. Making interstates bigger makes them bigger barriers. > and: > Obviously a rhetorical question to most on this list, but since it still doesn't appear to be considered rhetorical by many officials in a position to make decisions, it deserves to be answered. here's mine: Usually this practice is not stopped until we physically run out of room to build (i.e., the widened road physically begins to abut buildings). and even then we do not usually stop building. we simply tear down the buildings owned or lived in by the demographics least likely to mount effective resistance - see also anything written about Robert Moses. p.s. - I refuse to call things "improvements" when it's misleading what groups reap benefits and what groups incur costs, and I suggest everyone else on the list do the same. see also the victoria transport policy institute (www.vtpi.org) for a list of biased transportation planning terms, such as "improvement" and acceptable alternatives, such as "widened." > To which, your's truly, adds and asks: When decisions have been made against one's wishes, you will sometimes hear others say: " just let go"; or maybe: "please stop your whining". Others might say: "just let bygones be bygones!", or "you didn't voice your opinions loud enough for them to be heard"; or "you didn't voice your opinions clear enough for them to be understood". Still others will find ways to criticize the position you have stated in very general terms without getting to the "heart" of the matter: "your position was "perhaps unrealistic"; or "you when about things the wrong way in advocating your position"; or maybe "you were a loner and didn't ask for anybody else to join you". Some will take claim to easy positions almost under their breath: "It's best just to be silent long enough to be able to say "I told you so"; or "if I don't say anything it doesn't mean I support what is being proposed with my money and my environment". (shhh) Finally, another might say: why say anything negative or alternative to the wishes of those elite folks in power unless you will fight hard and long to argue for a better solution to the problem for all of us?" To which I will close this reply with: Why do you say anything negative or alternative to two or more lanes of highway pavement for I-90 unless you will fight hard and long to argue for a better solution than two or more lanes of highway pavement for I-90? Mike Neuman, Madison resident http://www.geocities.com/mtneuman/tribute_flag.html "The only thing in American politics that speaks more loudly than money is a riled-up citizenry. So get riled up!" - Dennis Hayes, "The Official Earth Day Guide to Planet Repair", 2001. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
