Opponents band together to stop Norris Canyon freeway project
Original post made on Dec 2, 2011
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 1, 2011, 11:29 AM
on Dec 2, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Maybe they are hoping to turn it into another Sunol-type toll lane. In any case, there are better ways for this very broke state to spend 102 million.
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
1. If there is to be any new exit on 680 between Bolliger and Crow Canyon, it SHOULD serve the interests of ALL drivers and taxpayers. It should not just serve the interests of bus commuters and carpoolers (at Norris they WOULD BE primarially going to Bishop Ranch).
If an exit at that location is a good idea, then it's a good idea for all drivers.
2. Cal Trans's claim that this exit concept is not intended to service the traffic from Bishop Ranch seems to be a blatant lie! Who (what drivers of buses and carpoolers) do they say that it will service and in what percentages?
3. Cal Trans, stop favoring buses and "so-called" carpoolers at the expense of the majority of us drivers, especially us local drivers using these local exits.
4. (Note that, in the future, Cal Trans will probably try to change the requirement from 2-people to 3-people in the carpool lanes.)
5. Hypothetically assuming that a new exit IS installed, wouldn't it be better (for all of us) to split the distance between Bollinger and Crow Canyon by installing a whole new bridge/exit over the freeway to service both sides and incorporate all drivers into it. On one side of the freeway it would service Bishop Ranch directly (and still leave Norris to operate as it does now); on the other side, it would service that residential area (it wouldn't become a major throughthrew on either side, as it would at Norris).
Wouldn't it cost roughly the same amount of money, be less difficult to construct, and have less upset to the existing traffic flows during the construction phase (than at Norris).
(Whereever an exit is placed, I realize that the most immediate neighbors thereto might complain about it for noise or other reasons. So moving it down (south) might incur the wrath of a few more SFRs, than at Norris.) But it is also an advantage to have a closer exit/entrance serving your neighborhood, especially with no strip malls attached.
6. I'm operating on the principal that "any exit should serve to help to distribute the flow of all traffic for all drivers in the area."
Cal Trans needs to get out of the business of trying to do "social engineering" from a socialistically political agenda (versus serving the individual).
on Dec 9, 2011 at 8:47 am
Yes I agree with PCMac: carpooling and bus driving are for liberal socialist euros and scamps. This is america people! Get out of my way! Beep beep here we go!