Comments by geeber
Page 1 of 33 | Next
Posted on May 25 at 3:56 a.m.
Volok says - " Hey ,
We've already started the ball rolling with a letter campaign to shut that ramp down entirely or go to right lane ramps. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
One letter per citizen. "
Can we also have one opinion piece per person ?
Posted on May 24 at 4:28 a.m.
More genius thinking. " They can drive over the hill or what have you.Some people might actually prefer that and that would be cheapest most of all." What ? Is Sarah Palin ghost writing here on the Indy?
More cars directed at surface streets that are already constricted, creating new problems where none currently exist , disregard for cost savings and construction time will be the opus of our resident Indy armchair traffic experts who lobby for ramp eliminations.
Posted on May 24 at 3:55 a.m.
Proving themselves to not be descendants of Einstein , the armchair traffic engineers of the Indy blog world prattle on about just closing on & offs to solve the 101 expansion issues.
So , force more traffic onto the already congested remaining ramps and flood surface streets because their false perceptions say that fast lane ramps are unsafe? In other words , lets create more problems where no problems currently exist because the elitist's deserve it.
Well what about the thousands of us non elitist proletariats who traffic those routes daily for work ? So we should disregard statistics that show higher accident rates on surface streets than on freeways? Does anyone doubt that the highest percentage of car trips on these ramps are for non resident worker types? I get it , more surface street traffic and related accidents because we don't want to leave some things as they are , speed up the project , and save money. Brilliant !
Posted on May 18 at 2:33 p.m.
Speaking of sentence structure , KV , you must have been trippin when you put together the one posted @ 1:40 a.m on the 17th.
Posted on May 18 at 1:49 p.m.
How's this Volok? Unplug your computer for a few hours a day. Go outside and get some fresh air . Go catch a wave or two , just not at any of my spots. We don't like guys who never stop talking in the water.
Posted on May 17 at 4:44 a.m.
KV ,unplug , go outside , get some fresh air. You live on the computer , dude.
Posted on May 16 at 10 p.m.
Volok talks a lot . Now we give credit to Caltrans for not being Halliburton? Huh? As though endemic bad planning and imprudent expenditure of public funds trumps criminal theft . I say they are both bad and that Caltrans is not to be trusted any more than Halliburton.
Also there are a lot of us that are not monied Montecitans that are opposed to the Caltrans plan for myriad reasons. In Voloks typical simple view , that is not understood.
Posted on May 16 at 7:14 p.m.
No1uofan is just parroting untruths without actually studying the stats. The absolute truth is that accident rates for the two fast lane offramps , which have been there literally for decades, are lower than for the 60 plus slow lane off ramps in the area. Don't distort the facts. These fast lane offramps are safe and will be made even safer if the Common Sense 101 plan is adopted.
If you guys trust Caltrans so emphatically , why don't you ask why they are tearing out the concrete at Bailard? Concrete that was just recently poured. I'll tell you why- Caltrans engineers flubbed the elevation and missed minimum height requirements on the underpass. Go ahead trust them and their poor design history . I sure don't.
Posted on May 12 at 4:16 a.m.
I saw Italian stiff the shoe shine guy the other day.
Page 1 of 33 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on May 29 at 7:14 p.m.
The simple fact is that the local fast lane on/offs work and have better safety records than slow lane ramps. The pro Caltrans zealots want to fix something that ain't broke, spend a bunch of our tax dollars doing it , and needlessly extend the life of the project. Sounds like a bunch of wankers with axes to grind .
On Which Way to Widen 101?