Published: Friday, July 12 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Carl,you tell us how the shared solution makes all these great promises
about vibrant communities, trails, yada yada yada, but you neglect to tell us
the MOST important thing. How does it move people and goods from point A to
point B? Maybe you were trying to hide something, that it really does NOT?
Lost - I don't know much about the proposal, but it was pretty clear that
the objective is to create self sustaining communities that have the services
people require, resulting in fewer trip miles required to obtain these services.
Make it so people canuse services in their own communities, shorten the trip
distances. There are obvious limitations to this approach. Not
every community can support a megaplex movie theatre. Not every town wants a
Walmart planted in its center. I appreciate its intent - but the reality of
Utah's geography, emissions are going to be controlled. Killing Growth
isn't an option. Killing jobs is neither a good option. Controlling what
comes out of the tail pipe is really only one of the real impactful options.
Carl, you are absolutely right. UCAIR is a government entity created to
contribute to solving our air pollution problem, but they REFUSE to take a
public stance against new freeways? One wonders what the point is. Oh yeah,
the point was to give the impression to the public that the state was doing
something about the air quality and that all would be fine. When will the
leadership realize that the people are not so dumb? At some point the rhetoric
is going to have to match the actions. But so far, all I see are contradictions
which point to either utter confusion and lack of any sort of plan, or outright
corruption and lies.
IRONY OF THE DAY: Gov. Herbert wants us to drive less. At the same time he wants
to build a giant new freeway in Davis County.
@Lost- UtahBlueDevil has it right. This plan would cut down on the need to move
things longer distances. Of course it's not possible to cut out the
movement of all "goods" from "point A to point B," but I believe
that the shared solution would cut down on that need. @UtahBlueDevil- Implementing more vibrant city centers would create jobs and
create more vibrant local economies. Smart city planning in Clearfield, Layton,
Kaysville, Hooper, etc. could lead to more local jobs, and decrease the need to
travel long distances to get to work. This plan would keep more tax dollars
local, and would create a more community oriented atmosphere. I'm not
really asking for a "Wal-Mart" or a "Megaplex" in every city
center; in fact, I'd like to see more local businesses in city centers that
give back to the community- I think that's a possibility for every city
along the freeway route. Thanks for the comments.
Too bad this letter is full of half truths.According to the American
Lung association, the cities with the worst year-round air are in California,
and Utah doesn't show up on the list.Utah does have a problem
with short term polution levels where for a few weeks per year the pollution is
bad, but what is the impact?Think of it like a rock concert. If you
go to one 5 times per year will your hearing be damaged permanently? Now if you
go every day, will you have permanent hearing damage?So, if we only
have a few weeks of poor air quality, what is the health impact of that? So far
I have not seen any research into the effects of short term exposure to high
Cingwell,just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. the
shared solution reduces the need to move people and things, thereby reducing
exhaust. Thus it does not address HOW to move things from point A to point B.
in essence, it tackles the issue from a completely different point
of view.Did I get it right?I guess the follow-up
question is "what are the possible side effects and other
ramifications"there may not be any, or they may be minor.just curious
Without adequate highways cars slow down and idle, which causes even more
pollution. The Legacy highway reduced pollution.
Lost- You got it right. We will still have to move stuff (goods, people, etc)
from point A to B, but it will decrease the need to do so, and the distance to
do so. There are some drawbacks. It will take an overhaul of the
way we have planned our cities for the past 100+ years.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments