ReThink280

Signatures 445 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 6, 7, 8, 9

1. 401
   Name: Anonymous on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 402
   Name: Philip A. Morris on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments: This would devalue a wide swath of Birmintgham metro. Must be stopped.

   Flag
3. 403
   Name: Michele Hill on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 404
   Name: Michele Hill on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 405
   Name: Susan Patrick on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 406
   Name: Ron May on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 407
   Name: Ron May on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 408
   Name: Pam Moore on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 409
   Name: David Gunnells on Nov 4, 2011

   Comments: (It's now estimated by the ALDOT to cost $1.1-1.6 billion) Bridges eventually come down, require expensive maintenance, pose a hazard when sink holes appear, are an eye sore, require someone (most likely a foreign corporation) to run the tolls, and cost more than more sensible alternatives.

   Flag
10. 410
    Name: Leigh Farrell on Nov 4, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 411
    Name: Kristi Selden on Nov 4, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 412
    Name: Joyce Roberts on Nov 4, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 413
    Name: Kris Blevons on Nov 4, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 414
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 5, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 415
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 5, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 416
    Name: Jennifer Kramer on Nov 5, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 417
    Name: Patricia Patton on Nov 6, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 418
    Name: Carolyn Neiswender on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 419
    Name: Michelle Wright on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 420
    Name: Jackie Langlow on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments: Strongly opposed

    Flag
21. 421
    Name: Vance Moody on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 422
    Name: Laura Williams on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 423
    Name: Donna Williams on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 424
    Name: Mayor Scott McBrayer, City Of Homewood on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 425
    Name: Mayor Scott McBrayer, City Of Homewood on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 426
    Name: Ginger Rueve on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 427
    Name: Nancy Hale on Nov 7, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 428
    Name: Lindsey Chitwood on Nov 8, 2011

    Comments: Create alternate routes, eliminate traffic lights, and for goodness sake TIME THE LIGHTS to keep traffic moving. There is no need to spend $800 million for 3 total hours of traffic-please find a better way to spend the money like making interior communities safer and desirable. Stop urban sprawl!

    Flag
29. 429
    Name: Barbara Lampkin on Nov 9, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 430
    Name: Tom D. Lampkin on Nov 9, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 431
    Name: Judy Truitt on Nov 12, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 432
    Name: Alan Truitt on Nov 12, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 433
    Name: Susan Barnacastle on Nov 12, 2011

    Comments: 280 would not be such a nightmare if there is proper city, county, and state management requirements prior to overdevelopment. This is a reaction to the problem not a plan to better the lives of all parties affected. Wouldn't we better off with a project of public transportation to address this commute than another ugly intrusive destructive highway?

    Flag
34. 434
    Name: Stuart Smith on Nov 13, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 435
    Name: Jon Shull on Nov 13, 2011

    Comments: Not a good plan.

    Flag
36. 436
    Name: Michelle Calvert on Nov 13, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 437
    Name: Judy McMillan on Nov 14, 2011

    Comments: why ruin a beautiful neighborhood? This would infringe on the rights of people who live close by. Would you allow this in your neighborhood or would you sign a petition?

    Flag
38. 438
    Name: Dana Shull on Nov 15, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 439
    Name: Jennifer Lowery Andress on Nov 26, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 440
    Name: Rita S. on Dec 12, 2011

    Comments: Yes, something needs to be done. But an elevated highway??? Why? How about exploring what other cities have done? Let's not re-invent the wheel.

    Flag
41. 441
    Name: Btjdpzvceg on Apr 27, 2012

    Comments: 60hxMS cxhhdgiqcyvy, buwglsuefgdv, yrakvizynkuj, http://dqapuombhcgn.com/

    Flag
42. 442
    Name: Anonymous on Sep 5, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 443
    Name: Anonymous on Oct 6, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 444
    Name: Richard Schlinkert on Nov 25, 2012

    Comments: An Open Letter Regarding Proposed Elimination of Traffic Signals on US-280: The Current Plan is Neither Safe nor Efficient ALDOT’s Mission Statement begins “To provide a safe, efficient, environmentally sound intermodal transportation system for all users, especially the taxpayers of Alabama.” ALDOT is in the unenviable position of being pitted against both the citizens Inside the Beltway (ITB’s) and those Outside the Beltway (OTB’s) with regard to the demands from both sides to “do something” about traffic congestion on US 280. And while there has been no shortage of propose “solutions”, the current solution of eliminating several traffic signals between Homewood and beyond I-459 flies in the face of ALDOT’s mission statement, as it will neither be safe nor efficient, nor a good economic value. Safety: Highway safety is only one element of public safety. Under the plan, the many-thousands of left-turning vehicles from the affected feeder roads would be expected to turn right on US 280, then make U-turns to head in the intended direction. This “let them make U-turns” plan will surely cause many more fatal accidents on US 280 from day one. Period. And this breach of public safety will surely fall on squarely on ALDOT as a liability, as it would have knowingly creating a hazard for the citizen it purports to protect by failing to provide a “safe transportation systems”. Safety affects everyone, both ITB’s, OTB’s and everybody else. Safety trumps convenience. Period More importantly, eliminating all left turn lanes from US 280 in this area will drastically increase response time of Police, Fire and Medical responders which would also have to go far out of their way to make U-turns to reach the scene. This delay could range from three minutes in low traffic hours to as much as ten minutes or more in peak traffic. Ask any Police or Fire Chief for the statistics on loss of life by fire, illness or injury when response is delayed by ten minutes. Heart attack victims die needlessly. Homes burn to the ground rather than suffering minor damage. Property and lives lost. Ten minutes is an eternity when considering emergency response, which is now excellent for the most part. Then add to ALDOT’s liability for the unintentional delay in Emergency Response time the potentially dozens of additional major and minor accidents that its plan will cause. Result: ALDOT’s mission statement of providing “safe, efficient.. transportation for all users” goes out the window. Handcuffing Early Responders is contrary to ALDOT’s mission of public safety, particularly when the only goal is to shave off a few minutes of commute time for those who made a conscious choice to move far from their workplace, knowing full-well the commute times they accepted. Did any of the dozens of traffic studies conducted by ALDOT consider these ancillary but serious risks to public safety in exchange for “convenience to the few”? Surely not. Efficiency: The rational mind has to wonder how this plan could possibly improve traffic flow at all. Back to those thousands of cars making a right turn on US 280, then a U turn to head in their intended direction. Did ALDOT’s study take into consideration that these merging vehicles will slow traffic, and then their crossing multiple lanes of traffic to make the intended U turn will further slow traffic? Surely not. And how many more fender-benders will this ill-conceived U turn plan cause, further slowing traffic? It is baffling how anyone could think this plan will have meaningful positive results. After all, these intersections are the very situation for which traffic lights were invented in the first place-to facilitate the orderly and efficient traffic flow at cross streets rather than the “jug-handle” and roundabouts of old. What is the net total of traffic lights added or removed by ALDOT in a given year? Bets are that virtually none are removed and many are added. Why? Because they do what they are intended to do, to provide a safe and orderly flow of traffic at cross-streets, as they do now in this area. Consider the number of new traffic delays caused by the certain increase of serious/fatal accidents caused by the U turn plan. Then add to that the merging traffic and the mad-dash to cross several lanes to make a U turn. How can this possibly make traffic flow more smoothly? It cannot. This plan is clearly a band-aid, a “hush plan” and the cheapest of the many proposed solutions to make everyone feel better that “something” is being done. In this case, “something” is the wrong thing. Just plain wrong. And from comments made on TV by ALDOT’ Brian Davis, it is clear that the only goal is to provide a “magic carpet ride” for the OTB’s which is clearly at the expense of the safety and convenience of the ITB’s. ALDOT’s mission statement says, ”for all users, especially the taxpayers of Alabama”, which would presumably not favor one group of taxpayers over another. Value: There are two point of value to consider-the value the taxpayer receives from ALDOT’s current plans, and then the negative impact of the property values and subsequent lost tax revenues of those homes and businesses affected by this ludicrous plan. While the U turn plan may be far less expensive than the idiotic Figg Engineering “skyway to heaven” plan, it is still a huge waste of money to accomplish nothing. Taking into account the impact on traffic of two years or more of construction, then the resulting failure of the plan to improve traffic flow, compounded with the huge waste of taxpayer money, ALDOT is going to have very unhappy constituents in both the ITB and OTB camps. Read, failure. It simply won’t improve traffic flow, it will cost tens of million to build and will cost countless hours of lost productivity for commercial traffic in the process and will ultimately have to be undone. Read, more unanticipated cost. Then there are the tens of millions in lost tax revenue that will be created by the devaluation of residential and commercial property adversely affected by this plan. Year after year. Millions in tax revenue lost. Businesses go under, which takes away payroll tax. Schools funded by property taxes enter proration and ultimate decline. Did ALDOT’s consultants ever add up these kinds of negative impacts on the entire community it serves while trying to save the OTB’s “four or five minutes”? Surely not. The ITB’s were there long before the OTB population existed. What about their rights to safe, convenient access and use of public thoroughfares? ALDOT is generally a pretty efficient agency, but it is indeed in an unenviable position with no clear solution to a problem compounded over many years by urban sprawl. But applying a “cheap fix” to a complex problem only creates a different set of problems that will compromise safety and arguably make traffic worse and surely reduce tax revenues. ALDOT’ planners would surely not knowingly create such a plethora of negative impacts for the sake of shaving “four or five minutes” off the daily commute of those who knowingly chose that commute, so one would have to think they just plain forgot to consider all of the ancillary negative impacts. As the old axiom goes, “If you can’t afford to do it right, you sure can’t afford to do it over”. Keep thinking ALDOT-a real solution will surely arise. Richard Schlinkert

    Flag
45. 445
    Name: Chris Underwood on Jan 20, 2013

    Comments: This will be a net loss to Alabama's sales tax revenue as former profitable businesses fold up and close.

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 6, 7, 8, 9