SAY \"NO!\" to U.S. Hwy 280 Elevated Highway

Signatures 462 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 › »

1. 151
   Name: Scott Douglas on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments: The proposed elevated 280 will only elevate tensions, escalate maintenance budgets, heighten misgivings concerning the multiple dysfunctions of local, county and state governments and delay the implementation of meaningful regional public transportation. Let's raise our sights, not elevate 280.

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments: There are cheaper, more practical and beneficial solutions...what about a traffic light on the exit and entrance ramps...like in Atlanta, at places where people enter 280 from Mtn Brook, Homewood, and downtown. And improve public transportation

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Scott Douglas on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments: The proposed elevated 280 will only elevate tensions, escalate maintenance budgets, heighten misgivings concerning the multiple dysfunctions of local, county and state governments and delay the implementation of meaningful regional public transportation. Let's raise our sights, not elevate 280.

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Wesley Lassen on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments: My business The Cook Store and other businesses in the area of this proposed elevated highway will be hurt as a result of this proposal. Also the beautification of our area will also be adversely affected. No Elevated Highway!!

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Kimberly Rogers on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Courtney B. Brown on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Mary M. Porter on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments: We can do better than this!

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Lisa Harrison on Feb 5, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Helen Rivas on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: No elevated highway, please. We need to start with mass transit alternatives. They are quickly implemented on existing infrastructure and a heckuvalot cheaper than the limited solution offered, which looks like a billion-dollar boondoggle.

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Shelley Lindstrom on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: It is amazing to me that such a big decision is based on a presentation that did not allow any questions..Linda Figg did not address the failures in the Tampa elevated hwy, traffic accidents (enormous law suit potential). Look at the risk of smashing into a concrete pilings vs say a 4" Bradford Pear! What about graffiti. Are you amazed by the idealistic/surrealistic and most probably unfunded landscaping (look around the state...get real! Think about the maintenance nightmares, noise, noise, noise. Imagine budget lighting/landscaping/noice/surfacing scenarios. This plan diminishes some of our strongest neighborhoods. It is a nightmare!

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Michael Gee on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Robert Corley on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: I oppose an elevated highway as the solution to traffic congestion on U.S. 280.

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: David Faulkner on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: Norma-May Isakow on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: Elizabeth Middlebrooks on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: We need to consider alternatives to the traffic problem that will benefit our communities as well as provide public transportation that is reliable and available.

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Shaun A. Crawford on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: There are better alternatives to the traffic congestion on 280 that will be longer lasting and preserve the south of the mountain scenic beauty. As a life-long 280 resident, I know we can, and should, do better than this.

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: Sallie R. Johnson on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: I DO NOT WANT AN ELEVATED ROAD ON 280!

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: Kathryn Porter on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: The elevated highway is not a good idea. It will tie up traffic for years and then will be out of date. It will be unsightly and bad for the environment. We need to work on mass transit.

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Pamela S. King on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: Kate Sexton on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Millymac Shackelford on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: Pat Bills on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: Elizabeth Fitzpatrick on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: no elevated highway!

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: Elizabeth Fitzpatrick on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: no elevated highway!

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: O'Hagan, John on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: I-65 and 31 need attention more than this high dollar quick fix that will only become as congested the day it finally opens as 280 is now. What it will do to traffic during the build can only be imagined.

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Michele Forman on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: Elevated highways divide and devalue communities. We need come up with a less expensive option.

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: Lane Woodke on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Greg Binder on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: Lauren Hayes on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Meredith Cashio on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: Rachel Corley on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Mary P. Mellen on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: Kaydee Erdreich-Breman on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: No elevated highway - expand regional public transportation

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: Mary P. Mellen on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Hugh O'Shields on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: Hugh O'Shields on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Hugh O'Shields on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Hugh O'Shields on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: Joseph 'Shane' Watts on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: Its amazing how much people will spend on useless frill when a simpler, less expensive and more useful tool is already at their fingertips. We don't need more roads for cazrs, we need less cars. For a drop in the bucket of the price and time for this project, we could have an immaculately working bus service, expanded services, added coverage areas, more frequent pickup times and more... possibly without any tax increases.

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Betty Likis on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: HANS PAUL on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: NO ELEVATED HIWAY

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: LORI OSWALD on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: nO LEVATED HIGHWAY

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: John B. MacQueen on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: I belive that this plan not only will not relive traffic but in fact will worsen it-all at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer!

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Kristin Elder on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: Strongly oppose.

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: Katherine Trammell on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: NO ELEVATED HIGHWAY

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: Ernest Stokely on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: No Elevated Highway! This is a bad idea whose time should not come any time soon! There is not serious discussion of limited access, express buses, ride share lanes, and a host of other possible solutions. How did this idea come so far so fast with so little public scrutiny

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Kimberly Cook on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments: Please do not allow Jefferson country residents to suffer for the mistakes made by Shelby county.

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: Virginia Thomas on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: Laura L. Chapman on Feb 5, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 10 › »