Sunday, December 28, 2008

Hockaday On The Realignment

This issue has probably already been beaten to death on Heraldette and Eric's blogs, never mind the Times- Standard Topix forums. Still, I thought J. Warren Hockaday's piece in today's Times- Standard on the Richardson Grove/ Highway 101 realignment was worth both a mention and a read. What more needs to be said?

6 Comments:

At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Chris Crawford said...

I agree, Fred. J's piece was succinct, straight forward and compelling.

 
At 3:58 PM, Blogger Ernie Branscomb said...

Nicely said J Warren. I agree entirely. We probably won’t be seeing much chance to improve the north coast roads if we don’t take this opportunity now.

I’ve been a strong advocate of straightening the Richardson’s grove route. It is the most environmentally sound thing to do. The by-pass across the river would take out many trees, and the ground is not stable.

I tried this post over at the T-S Blog but it doesn't like contactions, and that's all that I use.

 
At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have car haulers that come into the county with cars so what was wrong with the guy that paid a lot to get his car here? Scammed? Don't know. We also have scrap haulder that take wrecked cars out of Humboldt so they have to unload too?

I thought one way traffic could work at certain times of the day and just leave all the trees but you know CalTrans has to keep their workers working so what do we get? We are all stopped at times for one way traffic but it doesn't have to be a lead car. Red light at a place and the truck traffic goes though using all sides of the highway and then it changes using the other side. I would be simple as there aren't that many driveways to light up and it certainly would cost much less, but the CalTrans engineers have to be employed!

 
At 6:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leave the trees. Spend the money on developing modes of transportation that reduces our dependence on Diesel trucks and that don't contribute to global warming. How about allocating some of that money to Stephen Pepper to help launch his short sea shipping enterprise?

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger Hans said...

Not much money in the realignment plan at all. Most of it is to pay people to do manual work which is actually very minimal and uninvasive. Jay Warren Hockaday makes some very good points. Most of the postings and letters to the editor I read so far seem to be very uninformed about what the scope and impact of the work is.

 
At 6:51 PM, Anonymous J Warren said...

Thanks Fred:

For once, it's neither a complicated nor divisive issue. It truly is a reasonable compromise and cost effective solution.

Ernie, you're right. The opportunity is here and it is now.

Oh, and Anon 6:44, Hans is also right, not much money on this one. AB 32 will (already has) set a mandate to reduce emissions. in fact the efficiency of less polluting, modern trucks will improve air quality. An observation; we don't have a diesel truck dependency we have a transportation dependency. But you do make a good argument for rail and port development as both will result in fewer particulate emissions and vastly improved public safety.

And, I agree, Stephen Pepper's vision is promising and realistic. I think we have to be open to an array of options. If Stephen's concept is to work will depend on a strong business plan and a profit model that (ahem) pays its own freight.

My 2¢

JWH

 

Post a Comment

<< Home