"just say NO."
Nancy Reagan taught us well.
And this same mentality can be applied to the practice of local government spending local dollars on adding more and more lanes to existing roads.
More lanes mean more future money needed to maintain them.
More lanes mean exacerbating sprawl even with a shrinking population.
More lanes mean turning existing commercial areas into emptiness.
But are the points above the right perspective?
While one of the local newspapers reads: "[Western Reserve Road] which is 10 feet wide on each side, will be widened to 12 feet on each side and will have 4-foot paved shoulders," I've heard from others just how nice it would be if Western Reserve Road was additionally widened to four lanes.
Maybe now is the time to question the wisdom of expanding more and more streets in what used to be the exurbs. (now increasingly the suburbs)
When money is taken from the general fund (which it is) to widen roads, does that result in existing roads in your neighborhood not being maintained?
When the labor and time of county employees is used to widen roads, does that mean your issues compete with road widening?
When a two-lane country road becomes a four-lane dragstrip, does that make the situation more of less safe?
When the government subsidizes sprawl in a region that is shrinking, do your personal property values go down?
When these roads are built and the grocery stores and shops move, are you going to have to drive further and further just take care of basic necessities?
- - -
what do you think?