To: redpoll
All right, you convinced me. I actually wish more of your state was available by road. It's beautiful, but just way too hard to get around. Mostly, I blamed environmentalists for this, but I had never really thought through the infrastructure and ROI issues. Probably we could recover some of those investment costs over the long run by being able to better utilize, appreciate and enjoy those resources if we could actually visit them without the danger and expense of small aircraft.
However, there are still some awfully scary pieces of pork in the highway bill which would not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
14 posted on
11/16/2005 4:09:01 PM PST by
Wiseghy
(Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. – Ralph Waldo Emerson)
To: Wiseghy
wow, you're easily convinced.
19 posted on
11/16/2005 4:11:27 PM PST by
flashbunny
(LOCKBOX: Where most republicans keep their gonads after they arrive in Washington D.C.)
To: Wiseghy
The environmentalists share a lot of the blame for keeping our state unroaded. They want to see me living in "untouched wilderness" or some such crap. It hasn't been untouched since the ancestors of the Athabascans got here 15,000 years ago. On the other hand - why the hell couldn't they have just built a small drawbridge across the Narrows? I liked that idea of a toll ferry like they have in Puget Sound, too. One of the reasons why I think these bridges have gotten so much grief is the imperial overreach of Don Young and Ted Stevens.
23 posted on
11/16/2005 4:15:13 PM PST by
redpoll
(redpoll)
To: Wiseghy
Alaska is mostly undeveloped because the Captains of Industry, coal, steel, lumber, etc., want it that way. Oil is a special case, they will go for that wherever they find it.
152 posted on
11/17/2005 12:27:02 PM PST by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson