New freeway needed

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    Irony guy,
    I have a number of trees, large bushes, shrubs, and a lawn. My carbon absorption MORE than makes up for my carbon creation. How many urban apartment dwellers can say the same?

    Don’t disabuse Ernest of his delusion. He needs SOME type of entertainment.

    Demo Dave,
    “Humans have become little more than parasites on the planet.”

    If that is how you view yourself, I am sorry for you. I don’t think conservatives feel that way about themselves.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    May 31, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Any new traffic corridors near marches, wetlands, or any other environmentally sensitive or significant locations need to be implemented with the minimum amount of environmental degradation. In Davis County, there needs to be a strict moratorium on any new construction west of Legacy Highway in order to preserve the wetlands and the world-class migratory bird habitat.

    Humans have become little more than parasites on the planet. By slowly killing the host organism, we are slowly killing ourselves as well.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 31, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    The following ...ALL... are needed.

    A new road.

    Front runner widened from 1 to 2 tracks.

    People encouraged (possibly by government) to live close to their work.

    On I-15 each work morning thousands of cars are going north and thousands of cars are going south. Imagine the benefit if all those people traded houses.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 30, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    Irony Guy,
    The way to control population growth isn't by refusing to build roads.

    -People won't stop having children just because this road doesn't get built.

    When those children grow up they will need places to live, roads to get them to work, etc. Not all will choose to live in inner-city-slums or only places served by public transportation. Some people prefer a different lifestyle and will live in more rural areas whether you like it or not. Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending these people don't exist, or thinking not build roads make them go away or move to your slums... won't work.

    More_roads doesn't neccesarily mean more_drivers. Population will grow whether you build this road or not. The number of future drivers is a function of our birth_rate, not the number of roads we build.

    This is still a free country. If people want to live in rural areas or suburbs they can. You can't force free people to live in the inner-city and use public transportation (the progressive eutopia).

    Not building this road will not change the fact that populations grow.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 30, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    Re: "We do NOT need another freeway . . . ."

    Which really means, "I've already got mine. YOU don't need a freeway."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 30, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    Ernest T. Bass
    Hate to break the news to you, but environmentalists aren't the only people who want clean water for our kids to drink and clean air for us to breathe. But thanks for the over-dose of self_reightousness.

    I think EVERY person alive want's clean water and air. But you can keep pretending it's just you if you want.

    Some people just think we need roads too.

    Just because we have another road doesn't mean we all will drive on it (or that the number of drivers will suddenly increase). It means SOME people will have a road that is more convenient for the new areas where population is growing.

    Building a road doesn't automatically increase the number of drivers... it increases the # of options. It means some of the drivers who used to drive the old_road can now use the NEW_route.

    Which is more efficient (Green)?
    1. 2 roads that flow efficiently and serve areas where people live? Or
    2. 1 road that's plugged with stop_and_go traffic, engines idling, and doesn't go where many of the drivers live (so they have to drive farther)?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 30, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    I disagree with my beloved Nature Conservancy on this issue. We do NOT need another freeway to simply encourage urban sprawl in this valley. What we need is intelligent and cost-effective building of public transit and higher density housing. Otherwise, the environmental cost of 3 million commuters in this valley will far outstrip the effect of this freeway on the GSL wetlands.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 30, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Those darn environmentalists who want clean water for our kids to drink and clean air for us to breathe! I wish they would just go away and let factories & refineries kick out any amount of pollution they need in order to maximize profits. We should also be allowed to build roads anywhere we want! Why limit driving? It's not like the earth is running short on resources or anything.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    shh! don't give them any ideas!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 30, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Re: "Everyone benefits from excellent roads."

    Everyone, that is, but cynical "environmental" organizations, whose livelihood and existence depend on wringing donations from a tiny cabal of rich, but imprudent, iconoclastic, self-indulgent "greenies."