Comments about ‘No hurry on lake bridge’

Why not encourage businesses to set up there so people don't have long commutes in the first place? With so many people there, and with expectations of so many more moving there, it seems like a no-brainer.

Why in the world would the state prepare an environmental impact statement? Since an EIS is not required by law, it would be nothing more than a monumentally expensive fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funds.

This isn't rocket science. We've built thousands of bridges in this state and across the country. We all know exactly what the environmental impact will be.

An EIS would just hand the tree huggers bullets they can turn around and shoot back at us.

This "environmental impact" mantra they chant is a common tree hugger ploy. Its sole purpose is to harass us by delaying the project and making it too expensive to build.

Didn't we learn anything from the Legacy Highway?

That project became mired in lengthy and expensive environmental impact litigation that delayed it for a decade and tripled its cost -- TO ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE!

Utah taxpayers -- WAKE UP!

Yes, "Environmental Impact". Hopefully we did learn something from the Legacy Highway. The lesson: if you don't obey the law then there are expensive consequences.

As evidenced by the road that's now finally open, there was a route and road design that satisfied the legal requirements, and also was acceptable to the residents in the area. But the good ol' boys up there at 300 North State St. couldn't be bothered to obey the law and thereby provided the "tree-huggers", as you call them, with all the "bullets" they needed. The federal courts blocked construction because the law had not been followed. You can't just build 100 foot tall cement minaret in your front yard, right? Same principle here.

If you don't like environmental laws then you can work to change them, but insofar as they are on the books then the "tree-huggers" have every right to demand elected leaders and businesses obey them. Ours didn't. We taxpayers got to foot the bill for our "leaders'" malfeasance, and their PR machines got to spin it so that people like you would blame the environmentalists.

You're 100% right about the huge waste of money an EIS would be. If it's not required, why waste the money-even if they make Utah Crossing, Inc. pay for it.

But I don't like the idea of allowing a private company to control a 6-mile bridge across a public lake. Especially when the additional road won't be needed for 10-20 years. I would guess that Pioneer Crossing and 2100 N will be able to handle the traffic until 2020 or so.

Wait until it looks like a bridge is needed before you build it, and make it a public road. If you have to make it a toll bridge to fund it, that's fine. The state should have control over a road that could be a vital part of the transportation infrastructure.

All the talk of technical environmental issues, though they are important in this decision, misses the over-arching public-policy point: Should Utah Lake be for sale? I for one, as one of the Utah County citizen "owners" of the lake, don't think so.

Utah Lake is a valuable resource to our communities, more valuable with every year that the air clears and the land and water recover from the impact of heavy industry around the lake. The lake's condition and appearance affect our property values and quality of life. Why give up this resource so that a private concern may profit? At a minimum, the price assessed by the state should include the huge social cost to the public. Hey, have you seen the mountains in Utah Valley? Have you seen the views of the lake lately? The setting is world class. Why throw it away? You make improvements to your house to "improve" it, not ruin it.

True, the population is growing, but in time other solutions will present themselves. This bridge is not in the public interest. Read the vast majority of public comment filed with the Division and you'll know that.

Was it an oversight that you omitted the fact that the same road was built, on the same route, to the same specifications? Just delayed 10 years, at a cost triple what it should have been. A tiny cabal of tree-hugging hippie misfits, cost us several hundred million dollars, TO NO EFFECT!

Tree huggers accept no blame for the tremendous waste of our time and money, nor for the loss of life they cause.

Rest assured I am fighting, in every way I can, for repeal of NEPA, the ESA, and several other laws that were inadvisedly passed by a venal and corrupt Congress, costing American taxpayers trillions in unnecessary, even harmful environmental controls.

I'm confident Repeal of these stupid laws will begin after Congressional elections next year, as part of a comprehensive plan to return us to sanity and fiscal responsibility.

Executive agency regulations are just as bad. It may be difficult for the next three years, but I look forward to 20 Jan 2013, when a reasonable Republican will take office and quickly undo thousands of ineffective and irresponsible environmental regulations.

why ruin the lake when a better connection around the north shore would serve more people and not have the ecological impacts

What ecological impacts?

Timj, so why do people still commute between Salt Lake and Utah counties? Aren't there enough businesses set up to make commutes obsolete? You have a good idea, but it isn't practical. Americans are mobile and Utahns are no different. Business or no business, people are still going to drive. The thing you need to realize is that there is always some business or destination that isn't in your location that you need to drive a few minutes to get to. For instance, there is only one IKEA in Utah and people as far away as Logan or Idaho drive to it. Thankfully, I live in Eagle Mountain (the Ranches) and I'm less than 20 minutes away from most major shopping in South Salt Lake County or North Utah County.

Utah County has destroyed the lake for years dumping everything in it from sewage to carp.
Surely they should have some pride. Flat Head Lake in Montana and Lake Tahoe in Calif. & Nevada wouldn't even consider putting a bridge across these lakes. Dont sell out to the developers by further ruining the resources of a fresh water lake. Utah County folks that support a bridge are selfish slobs.

Opposed to Bridge, alright with name calling; what do you call those who support the Bridge from outside of Utah County? How about all those who take their TOYS and Campers to the dunes and weekend locations that drive through Lehi to get to Redwood Rd and head through Saratoga to get to their weekend play time? & Why don't those tree-huggers and everyone else concerned about Lakes also go after cigarette smokers and makers? I see thousands of cig buttes thrown out vehicles every year, it is a HABIT. One that is known to cause fires that destroy roadside vegetation down to the waters-edge and forests, yet I never here of the environmentalist, and so on, out there after the that group. For those who say what until it is needed, STOP HAVING BABIES, stop the growth. Your children and grandchildren who want to stay here but not live in your home will go somewhere... some of them will buy, where future 'unknown' roads will need to be built, swatches of land soon to be occupied by them, later causing businesses and families to have to relocate for bigger taxes and higher-cost roads BY THE GOVERNMENT