Signatures 445 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... 9 › »
-
101
Name: Lila Genereux on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
102
Name: George Atkinson on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
103
Name: Virginia S. Rogers on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
104
Name: Brock Hill on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
105
Name: Anonymous on Feb 22, 2010Comments: I am extremely opposed to the ALDOT Expansion Plan. Among many complaints, I think it is absolutely absurd to give our money to a Engineering Firm in Florida. I have also heard speakers that have said that a lot of cities with Fly-over Roads are trying to get rid of them. Additionally, the people in Florida are not completely sold on the work the Figg Firm has done there with fly-over Roads. I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE ALDOT/ FIGG PROPOSED SOLUTION. LET'S RETHINK 280!!! Ann Relfe Broker/Owner Relfe-Welden Real Estate, Inc.Flag
-
106
Name: Pilar Taylor on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
107
Name: Bonnie Phelan on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
108
Name: A.charles Ferlisi on Feb 22, 2010Comments: A viable alternative is not necessary. Go to Atlanta. There are dozens of roadways that handle more cars per day and it works without an elevated toll highway. Build an alternate roadway from 459 to 119 over toward scicard hollow road (basically parallel to 280). an elevated roadway will allowTraffic noise to carry into neighborhoods miles away. a roadway at ground level noise is buffetted by objects.No objects much at that height.Flag
-
109
Name: Brooke Maluff on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
110
Name: Robert Coe on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
111
Name: Tommy Jackson on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Let me know how to help stop this.Flag
-
112
Name: Lyda Stevens on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
113
Name: Myra Crawford on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Why is Gov Riley ignoring the less expensive and more environmentally friendly alternative to an elevated 280? What is the back story on the financial arrangements related to E280 that we aren't being told?Flag
-
114
Name: Elizabeth Wilson on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
115
Name: Lee Gravlee on Feb 23, 2010Comments: NO!!!!! We live by 280 behind the Colonnade. I don't want the neighborhood depreciation nor the noise. I Beg of you to seriously consider the alternatives........ And I vote.Flag
-
116
Name: Will Vahle on Feb 23, 2010Comments: “In wilderness is the preservation of the world.” -Henry David ThoreauFlag
-
117
Name: Maqbool Patel on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
118
Name: Gail H. Parrish on Feb 23, 2010Comments: This website is extremely well done. I am glad to support efforts for a better approach to 280 problems than the one proposed by ALDOT and Figg Associates.Flag
-
119
Name: Brooke Brasfield on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
120
Name: Susan D Putnam on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Doesn't anyone think of the advantages of light rail or other public transportation, especially in a city with a high pollution rate and large number of people with respiratory diseases?Flag
-
121
Name: Rebecca Moody on Feb 23, 2010Comments: We need far-sighted solutions - not short term fixes. As the rest of the country is tearing down their elevated highways that they realize blight communities, we want to build one here?Flag
-
122
Name: Kimberlee Jernigan on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
123
Name: Kate Lamar on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
124
Name: Lesley Duke on Feb 23, 2010Comments: I am NOT in favor of an elevated Toll Road in my daily commute. I am NOT in favor of the state's highly costly budget for this project. For once the state NEEDS to listen to the people of the 280 community. Do not put in an elevated highway that will only cause MORE problems for business and the community.Flag
-
125
Name: Michael Crump on Feb 23, 2010Comments: Why not use the middle lane for an elevated and / or HOV lane? Was that not considered?Flag
-
126
Name: Kim Tidwell on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
127
Name: Martha Espy on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
128
Name: Nancy Mccollum on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
129
Name: Percy Brower on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
130
Name: Judy Long on Feb 23, 2010Comments: I believe the elevated Hwy 280 expansion will be extremely harmful to the beauty and fiscal viability of the 280 corridor. I do not believe that this elevated area will help traffic congestion, since most folks will not pay the "toll" to use it.Flag
-
131
Name: Nate Dreger on Feb 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
132
Name: Jessica York on Feb 24, 2010Comments: We need to fix the broken mass transit system, not build bigger and wider roads. Our earth cannot sustain this level of pollution and gas emissions. To continue to ignore our environmental impact is more than just folly - it is irresponsible.Flag
-
133
Name: Lisa Grupe, Ph.D. on Feb 24, 2010Comments: I'm opposed to ALDOT's US 280 Expansion on the grounds that it's too expensive and too short-sighted. There is not a single example of an elevated highway that has solved a community's problem, and there are several alternatives that HAVE worked for cities such as Charlotte and Cincinnati. I object strenuously to have my tax dollars spent to build an elevated highway that will surely be torn down less than 10 years from now wasting even more of my tax money. Get educated about alternatives to ALDOT's plan!Flag
-
134
Name: Kelly Cloud on Feb 24, 2010Comments: This project reveals a complete lack of progressive thinking by our leadership. More cars, more concrete, more pollution.- not what we need. What we need is a right-sized solution that will scale as the population grows - not a band-aid that will be obsolete in 20 years.Flag
-
135
Name: Don Paoletti on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
136
Name: Romaine Hain on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
137
Name: Anonymous on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
138
Name: JACK HAIN on Feb 24, 2010Comments: Please be wise and do the enviornment a favor by not building the Expansion Project.Flag
-
139
Name: Glenn Ponder on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
140
Name: Victoria Nichols on Feb 24, 2010Comments: ALDOT needs to take the alternative plan seriously.Flag
-
141
Name: Julia Holt on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
142
Name: Joey Watson on Feb 24, 2010Comments: I watched the January 18, 2010 presentation at Homewood City Hall. The elevated highway plan seems like Gov. Riley trying to impose his legacy on the area rather doing what is best for the area.Flag
-
143
Name: Karen Bedsole on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
144
Name: Mary Lee Rice on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
145
Name: Roy Miller on Feb 24, 2010Comments: We are so against this elevated road, we live in Meadowbrook and this woud ruin our neighborhood and oak mountain school area.Flag
-
146
Name: Julie Miller on Feb 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
147
Name: Kathryn Hook on Feb 24, 2010Comments: This project is extremely short-sighted! The project goal appears to be to allow Shelby County residents to race from downtown Birmingham to Eagle Point in ten minutes. This could be more easily done by eliminating traffic lights at key intersections by building bridges with on/off access over 280. More importantly, this project needs to be energy efficient and environmentally sustainable: THINK LIGHT RAIL & MASS TRANSIT! ReThink the 280 Expansion Project!Flag
-
148
Name: Stephanie Dill on Feb 24, 2010Comments: not one engineer on this continent can design this, much less fullfill the build required. welcome to the day of graphic design. p.s. anti build for life outside interst,no econmy impact..if anything higher insurance premiumsFlag
-
149
Name: Patrick Tucker on Feb 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
150
Name: Virginia Volker on Feb 25, 2010Comments: Please, no elevated highway on 280. Check out the way they do traffic flow in Huntsville,Al.Flag