Reasonable Reader1 
Member since Apr 22, 2010


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Droves for the Grove

Just like the grumbling (actually, it was much more than that) about Cypress Grove in Woods's letter was a separate issue. Apparently, you missed the point of the retort.

Posted by Reasonable Reader on 04/22/2010 at 11:07 AM

Re: “Roads and Redwoods

Many of the current trucks aren't filled to "capacity." That's not the point. It's the added expense and the double trips that are made. Does the greater environmental cost, in terms of emissions, come from making one trip straight through the grove, or from having someone else meet the truck with the bigger trailer or whatever at South Leggett, and have both of them drive through, then have one of them drive back? Isn't that lunatic? And what's up with the "severe lack of public involvement?" I've been to two Caltrans meetings, and heard about a couple of others. There was an open comment period on the DEIR and the EIR. And so what if the photos were provided by Caltrans? Is the road different when someone else takes the photo? And if it's true that they're actually adding more curves to the road, like the project manager said, then why would people start driving faster through there? It's not about the speed. It's about the off-tracking. It doesn't matter how slow you're going. If your trailer doesn't fit in the lane around the curve, it's not going to fit regardless of whether you're going 5 or 50. Talk to any business that depends on shipping in and out of the county. I'm sure some are willing to pay the higher costs. I'm also sure that once pot is legal and their gray-market economy collapses, they'll take all the savings they can get, whether in dollars or carbon emissions.

Posted by Reasonable Reader on 04/10/2010 at 6:42 PM

Re: “Roads and Redwoods

It's not written that Cal-Legal trucks are going to be obsolete. It's written that Caltrans is mandated, per the STAA, to provide reasonable access on terminal access routes. The trucks allowed will be 5 or 6 feet longer than the ones that are currently allowed, according to the schematics used in the Highway Design Manual. The weight limit is still 80,000 pounds. The issue with a push for higher weight limits is separate from the access issue, and shouldn't be conflated with it. Given the fact that the state is deeply in debt and road maintenance is expensive, I imagine there will be statewide concern against allowing higher-weight trucks on California roads. The issue with the Marina Center is, likewise, separate from the access issue. You're not going to stop development by keeping the bottleneck, which, contrary to Dr. Miller's continued rabid assertions, does affect many businesses in Humboldt County, not just a few. Development and growth need to be dealt with in land-use planning and the GPU. Enough is enough with the fearmongering and all the red herrings. The local enviros are shooting themselves in the foot by acting like it's still 1990, and it's them against the world. You're making the rest of us bleeding-heart liberals look bad, and we resent it.

Posted by Reasonable Reader on 04/10/2010 at 3:03 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2014 The North Coast Journal Weekly

Website powered by Foundation

humboldt