More idiocy from Maine (renting, public transportation, horse)

[BacktoNE]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Don't more lanes equal more bowlers and more bowlers equal more beer?

That's what it means out here!


And even with 6 lanes, there still isn't enough room for the bad drivers, who cause the accidents, during rush hour.

[Petertherock]

We aren't talking about making an 8 lane highway. We are only talking about going from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. No one moaned and groaned when the Turnpike widened. Obviously it was a pain in the neck while the construction was going on but it was worth the wait! How in bloody heck is widening the road to 3 lanes going to burn more oil??? The number of cars isn't going to go down if they don't widen the road!!! In fact, there will be more oil being burned because people will be out on the road longer instead of reaching their destination sooner so they can shut the cars off!!

This is exactly what I am talking about with the idiocy in Maine.

[Coaster]

Peter, widening the turnpike took two statewide referendums. There was more than a little moaning and groaning about it.

"How in bloody heck is widening the road to 3 lanes going to burn more oil???"

Hmmm, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. My point about oil is not that cars are going to burn more of it, but that there is less of it available in the world. Global crude oil production is dropping. We're on the downside of Hubbert's Peak -- or at least that bumpy plateau before the final fall. There will simply be less oil for driving. In fact, the latest figures show that miles driven already are dropping because of high gasoline prices. And the number of cars in the long run will go down, simply because there will be a lot less gasoline -- and what there is will be much more expensive -- to power them. By the time 295 is widened, which is still five to seven years down the road even if they can find the money, it won't need to be widened because traffic flows will be dropping due to lack of gasoline.

[K-Luv]

I can understand that traffic through the Portland region is horrific by Maine standards, but as someone who has lived in metropolises most of my life, it is really not as bad as it could be.

What really needs to be done is to fix all of these dang potholes that are scattered across most of the roads through the city.

I don't see the environmental impact of widening 295, though, as there seems to be enough space on both sides to accomplish this without destroying any habitats. I think that the environmentalist want this money to be used for public transportation, which I agree with, as the bus system here could use some major improvements.

[mollysmiles]

I don't get the whole "traffic" issue of 295 either.....I've spent a considerable amount of time in southern Maine over the last six years, and having traveled quite a bit as well, that "traffic" is nothing.

[Bydand]

Portland has "traffic?" Really, never seen it on my many trips down there. I agree the money would be better spent on improving the public transportation options.

[Submariner]

Traffic snarls go hand-in-hand with dense populations.

Four-lane highways, six-lane, eight-lane, bahh. I have driven each variety and they each become slow-moving parking lots. Icck

L.A. is a good example.

IMHO that model is not the best. It may encourage a metroplex to grow in density to become an even denser packed population. But ickk.

Is the smog from a million slow-moving vehicles better than the smog from three million?
Cough, sputter, ickk!

London is a large dense city, and they went to their 'El' long ago. It stretches out connecting their entire island, and it does lessen the traffic problems a great deal while continuing to encourage more dense-packed population centers.

San Fransisco built it's BART system which seems to do a good job. They keep extending it out further in each direction. Each terminus of BART begins as a small un-heard of town with one gas station and a freeway off-ramp, and soon grows into a huge commuter destination. However it takes the strain of daily commuters away from the freeways, and quickly gets them each to within blocks of their jobs.

I have relatives that use BART, and their daily commutes are no longer the congested traffic that it once was.

I would leave 295 alone.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by mollysmiles

I don't get the whole "traffic" issue of 295 either.....I've spent a considerable amount of time in southern Maine over the last six years, and having traveled quite a bit as well, that "traffic" is nothing.

Rome has traffic!

Cairo has much thicker traffic than does Rome.

As for Maine, when I go South, I tend to stay on the freeway. Either I-95 or 295, so far I have not seen bad traffic yet.

I think that the worst 'traffic' around here, is when a beaver drops a tree across the road. And folks stop to help it drag it's tree off the pavement.

Or someone hits a deer and the next three folks all stop to help cut-up the meat.

[Elcarim]

I think I've said this before, but when we were in Portland, we kept trying to get to the "freeway". We finally realized we were ON the freeway!! Didn't recognize it with the lack of traffic. The lack of 6 lanes in either direction was a little confusing too! I've never seen anything like it in my life.

And since when does wider freeways with more lanes equal less accidents? I think that's what someone said earlier. Houston news channels on the TV and radio have special segments every 15 minutes throughout the 4 hours a day of rush hour traffic - morning and evening - just to report on all the accidents to avoid and suggest alternate routes to avoid being stopped in traffic for an hour waiting for it to clear.

[AliceT]

Originally Posted by Petertherock

The widening of I-295 would be a welcome site for anyone who has to commute on this road.

First of all, let me start off by saying that I travel a couple thousand miles each year. And one thing that I cannot tolerate is traffic. I don't mind going 250 miles out of my way to avoid known traffic issues. Making the best time is not the issue - avoiding what I consider a dangerous situation for a semi-disabled woman alone in unfamiliar territory is the issue and to ensure my feeling of personal safety, I go way around known congestion areas. I do not divert myself anywhere in the state of Maine. Why? Because nowhere in the state of Maine is there a congestion issue.

Originally Posted by Petertherock

It's one thing that I wouldn't mind paying taxes for.

Don't give the tax man ideas!

Originally Posted by Petertherock

I know Portland's City Council has recently passed a law that businesses and residential areas are required to provide a certain number of bicycle spaces.

Would you prefer to have a bicycle parking in a parking space designed for a car? That would get old really fast with motorists. I applaud Portland for making that into law.

Originally Posted by Petertherock

I wonder how many people are going to be riding bicycles when it's -10 degrees or snowing or ice or raining?

You're getting personal now. I used to ride a moped year round in snow and ice. And considering the number of people who are into snowmobiling in Maine, I doubt the cold or ice or snow will deter those who choose to ride a bicycle or moped straight through the winters.

I think leaving for work 30 minutes earlier would solve the whole traffic issue.