What % of the vote does that represent in each of those races?
I like the idea of some of those radar speeding signs that tell you how fast you're going. Those things really DO work to get people to slow down to the speed limit, or near it.
I have no idea why a regular speed limit sign, together with one's own speedometer, does not have the same effect, but I'll leave that question to others. I know that those "your speed is..." signs really work, and I think we should have them at both ends of the narrowest parts of the Grove. That would do much more to promote safe driving and prevent accidents in that area than widening the curves and the roadway...and of course would cost many millions less!
Apparently you've jumped to the conclusion that I favor the RG project. Actually I don't. But I do think that most of the arguments being made against it are highly speculative, to say the least.
The reason that I oppose the project is simple: It seems likely that it will do at least SOME harm to at least SOME of the ancient redwoods that have their roots disturbed. And on the other side, I just don't think it's going to be all that beneficial to local businesses.
Sure, our freight costs are higher than some other places, but many other costs are lower -- the cost of land and buildings, labor, taxes -- all are lower here than many places in the Bay Area.
And I think the safety argument is not very convincing either. I think that if the curves are improved and the roadway somewhat widened, that will just result in people driving faster.
Essentially my attitude towards the roadway through Richardson Grove is that it ain't broke, so don't fix it.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation