Bonding Roads is Right Direction (Or: College Student Understands the Truth behind "Smart Growth")

If the problem is congestion, then the solution is not more roads. More roads = more development = more homes = more cars = more congestion = more need for roads.

The population is only increasing by immigration. Without immigration, there would be fewer people in the US.

Without exception, whenever the public bitches about congestion, they vote in more taxes to build more roads. This always leads to more development, which leads to a bigger problem than what we originally had. The problem is not solved, but aggrivated.

If the "problem" of government deficits needs to get solved, what do we do? Raise taxes, which makes politicians spend more money which creates higher deficits, or have them reduce spending, and allow the existing taxes to come in line with the current spending.

You can pave every square mile between San Francisco and LA. All you will do is create a bigger, unhealthy mess. Is that what we want?

You operate under the assumption that traffic can be cured. I operate under the assumption that we will always develop in excess of what the infrastructure can support. The question becomes: "How big do you want the mess?"

You'all miss the point. Why have everything downtown? Put business closer to where people want to live. Mason County has been begging for industry since the forestry industry died. Kitsap County could use some industry also, the military is the biggest employer here. How many vehicles come from Kitsap and Mason to King & Pierce to work when they could stay here? GMA prevents employers from moving into our areas.

The freight mobility sucks in the Central Puget Sound region. Most regions of similar size have by-pass routes that reduce truck traffic. Heavy truck traffic could be restricted to the by-pass lanes during commuter hours. Freeing up lane space. You'll still need more concrete at choke points.

In principle, I agree with your premise "if you build it they will use it". Every time I install a new bookshelf around here, it seems to be overflowing in no time.

However, if someone wants to move to an area and pay the taxes to build the infrastructure necessary to support his chosen lifestyle, should we be in the business of telling him to find somewhere else to live?

I thought the gist of this article was that the government was using tax dollars to fund public transportation which would not meet the needs of the community but would instead try to channel the citizens into living a lifestyle they would not normally choose. And, allowing the govenment tell us how to live is a bad thing.

As for curing the traffic problem, I prefer to look for solutions that decrease government involvement in our lives and increase personal freedoms. The idea of a sliding-scale charge for the use of roads based on peak traffic times sounds interesting.

If I want to spend the $$ to commute two hours each way, why is it your business?

If I want to spend the $$ to commute two hours each way, why is it your business?

I don't disagree with anything you say. I don't care if you spend any amount of money to get to and fro. All I am saying is that we, as a society, bitch-bitch-bitch about traffic, yet propose the very thing that is guaranteed to make it worse. The problem is not enough roads, but too many people.

You can move wherever you want. If you want to drive two hours in clutch-grinding traffic, that's your problem. Asking the taxpayers to fund a 4 lane highway out into the hinterlands for your McMansion, and then 15 years later asking for it to be expanded to 8 lanes is not really using the ol' noodle.

Yes, I don't want to see the remaining asthetic beauty of our nation ground up into yuppie slums. I know that is counter to every FReeper notion in the book, but I really don't want Seattle looking like NYC with mountains, just so we can make room for Californians and Cambodians who dicked up their part of the world and now bring their expertise to my area. LA , Phoenix, Dallas, Las Vegas all have the same endless paving that provides endless development, and a festering slum of a city. Mexico City is not what I aspire to.

Yes, freedom dictates that we allow our cities to look like Mexico City or Sao Paulo or Beijing. Is that what we want? I say no. If that makes me an elitist, so be it. Some things are worth preserving. Sustainable population is going to be forced upon us either by ourselves or by nature. Nature will be far more brutal.

Yep, this phenomenon has a name. It is called "latent traffic". Basically, you build more roads, in two years or less the congestion is right back where it started. This has been documented hundreds of time.

More roads leads to more development, which leads to more traffic. Its a Catch 22 situation.

Also, all the people who complain about congestion on the roads are the same ones who say that sprawl is not a problem ???? Huh? These are the same people who show up at community meetings trying to block new developments near theirs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.