1604 Traffic on the West Side (Alamo: school, subsidized, taxes)

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by traficdogn

It is much more efficient than the system we have now. Over building is very inefficient.

Downtown has empty schools, empty roads, public transportation, and low property values. Instead, we are wasting money on an endless cycle of building new schools, new roads, new malls.

If home buyers and developers can't afford to build the roads and facilities they are "impacting", it shouldn't be built. Taxes should be used for maintenance, not construction.

I mostly agree. We can't really stop sprawl, but I do believe that government shouldn't be subsidizing it.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

What's you're failing to see is that the Dominion project was mandated when it was annexed years ago so emergency crews could reach the area. It has nothing to do with traffic congestion. It's like comparing apples to oranges. At least in my eyes. All of that was outlined in the WOAI article. And I did mention that I was upset that it did cost a lot over the budget to finish up the project.

We're obviously not going to agree on the topic, and I'm sorely outnumbered in my opinion (and will always be) so I might as well just let it be.

You're right. But your argument is backed up by, you know, actual information. The reaction is a pretty tremendous example of the old saying that "the truth is more important than the facts".

And it clearly demonstrates the mentality of many suburban residents: that "somebody" fix the problem that they've created (and immediately, of course!).

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by rd2007

and stop wasting funds on artsy fartsy crap. Most of us could care less about that garbage and almost all of us drive on the streets and highways. Stop appealing to a couple of loud-mouthed whiners and actually listen to the people for a change. oh yeah, get rid of the corruption too..

What a small-minded statement. If "the people" like you were in charge, this city would look (and function) like your beloved, mass-produced, traffic-choked suburbs.

[ashbeeigh]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

You're right. But your argument is backed up by, you know, actual information. The reaction is a pretty tremendous example of the old saying that "the truth is more important than the facts".

And it clearly demonstrates the mentality of many suburban residents: that "somebody" fix the problem that they've created (and immediately, of course!).

Thank you. I get it. Everyone is frustrated by the traffic over there. But complaining probably isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Just for illustration purpose and I know it's not a highway.... I'm frustrated with the traffic on De Zavala that I deal with on a daily basis, but just fyi (for everyone that's reading this) De Zavala had been two lanes and has gone down to one by the Valero and by Clark for 20 + years (long before the construction and suburban boom that came) and just now...come 2010 are we getting it fixed (Thanks to city and state funding).

[wellguy]

dvlpr -I think what rd2007 was speaking of is the "Concrete Art" that you see on the sides of overpasses. I don't think money needs to be wasted on Cactus, Airplanes, Hidden Gecko's, etc.

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

What a small-minded statement. If "the people" like you were in charge, this city would look (and function) like your beloved, mass-produced, traffic-choked suburbs.

Sorry, yours is a narrow-minded response. Many of us would rather the money be spent on functional road improvements instead of fashionable ones; so if the cost-saving of not putting some of the aesthetics means other works can be completed, then that route makes more sense considering today’s limited funds.

[wellguy]

majormadmax- I agree with you totally except for one thing, dvlpr's remark is one out of pure Arrogance.

[joe123456]

Tax gas like they do in Europe and build lots of toll roads. ALL REVENUE from additional gas revenue and toll roads would go to maintaining and building more roads and public transportation.

If gas was $5.00-$8.00 a gallon and we had lots of toll roads, we wouldn't have the traffic jams that we have now. We would also live a lot closer to work and in more dense communities with convenient public transportation. Additional benefit would be that we would all walk a lot more and wouldn't be so fat, and therefore we would save hundreds of billions of $s that no go towards health care.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by wellguy

majormadmax- I agree with you totally except for one thing, dvlpr's remark is one out of pure Arrogance.

Does the bold mean you really mean business? If so, I might suggest you add all-caps to your repertoire...

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

Sorry, yours is a narrow-minded response. Many of us would rather the money be spent on functional road improvements instead of fashionable ones; so if the cost-saving of not putting some of the aesthetics means other works can be completed, then that route makes more sense considering today’s limited funds.

If rd2007 was talking about decorative additions to highway overpasses, then I totally agree.

But there's nothing in his post that is clear about that - he made a reference to "artsy fartsy crap", which I took to mean reducing funding for civic & public art and use the money to build more streets instead. I think the point of his post is, at best, an ambiguous one.

So.....just to be clear.....I'm not in favor of spending additional public monies for highway & road infrastructure......and that includes some of the ridiculous decorative "ornament" for highways.