Letter to the Editor: Using computer simulations to look at three-lane alternative
December 22, 2008
Ms. Cutler, your idea of is wonderful and as a group, back in June of 2008, we offered up this option to Placer County and to Cal-Trans. Unfortunately Cal-Trans has refused to attempt this mock-up of the proposed three-lane road configuration, saying it would be too difficult and too confusing.-
In lieu of this action, we are requesting that a non-interested, third party, traffic professional run a computer simulation of the various road configurations. This simulation could handle all of the traffic issues we are concerned about and run a variety of situations to prove or disprove the efficiency of the three-lane alternative.
I don’t generally spend time defending our group, but there are a few issues that you address that were incorrect.
We are not anti-development. We actually support intelligent and thoughtful redevelopment. In fact, the four-lane alternative is much more supportive of development in Kings Beach than the three-lane. How so, you might ask? Because the four-lane proposal keeps traffic flowing safely while allowing for the increased traffic trips created by several large scale developments currently being considered.
In terms of “fear mongering,” all of our traffic concerns come directly from the traffic study that is part of Placer County’s environmental impact statement. We are not making things up, simply pointing them out. If you were to read this report you would see this is the case.
The attorney we have is an “environmental specialist,” one who completely understands both the positive and negative impacts of traffic, noise, and pollution on economic revitalization.
Recommended Stories For You
As the Governor recently said: “Our task is to solve the problem, not create more problems.”
Also, we definitely don’t want the “accident ridden” (sic) highway to remain the same, we want a highway that takes advantage of the myriad of traffic-calming options available to beautify the neighborhood and to slow down the traffic without bringing it to a screeching halt for 3-6 months of the year (check the EIS Traffic Appendix for this number).
We want the water treatment options, sidewalks and curbs with gutters. We actually want all the same things your group wants, except the negative impacts of the three-lane alternative.
Thanks again for the great idea of the mock-up; we really wish they had been willing to try it. We were.
Trending In: Opinion
- Open season (even longer): Lake Tahoe resorts extend operations following record February snowfall
- Man killed walking into oncoming traffic on Interstate 80
- Future of Gray’s Crossing development up in limbo
- Northstar California General Manager Nadia Guerriero on the move
- Truckee police arrest woman on assault, child cruelty charges