This thread discusses the Content article: Growth will force a lake bridge

I hope this article is wrong that a lake bridge is the only solution.

How about considering the decisions of those who move across the lake? THEY know that access is limited! So, why should it be changed? After all, they knew when they moved there, that they might have to drive around the lake. They DID make that choice, right?

So, explain again, why we need to build them a bridge? Just because they knew, that sooner or later, we would, is no excuse!

If you want to live on the other side of the lake, be prepared to commute, and be prepared for traffic regardless of how many highways are built. The only reason we might see the growth you've projected is if we build highways over our communities and across our lakes. Roads are incentives for sprawl. If you want sprawl, build more highways. If you want more traffic, build more highways. More roads never solved anything. If you build them, people will sprawl. In short order, the highways become congested, so we build more, they become congested, we build more. If you are trying to solve the problem of congestion, roads aren't the answer. Sorry for repeating myself, but we just don't get it.

Building a causeway across the lake is the stupidest and saddest proposal I've heard in a long time. A 7 mile linear pile of dirt across one of our valley's great natural and ecological treasures would be a tragedy. Next we'll hear "smart-growth" proposals to just fill the lake in and build more houses and roads, which is what we Americans do best. Zion is supposed to be beautiful, not a landscape dominated by freeways and parking lots.

There is no logic behind the claim that roads equal urban sprawl. Roads provide access to EXISTING points. Roads aren't built and millions of tax payer dollars aren't spent on vague hopes that people MIGHT use them. The need must be established according to legal standards.

But this article isn't about that. This is a question of quality of life, and the air we breath is a big part of that (red burn anyone?).

A few facts (and these aren't as emotionally satisfying as blaming roadways for sprawl, or those who move across the lake):

Fact 1: When a vehicle isn't moving, that vehicle produces far greater amounts of Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ozone (O3) and Particulate Matter (PM-10). Regardless of the theories of the relationship between urban sprawl and highways, more congestion on our roads means more air pollution.

Fact 2: Every DOT roadway is subjected to an air quality rating by the Federal government. Federal law requires DOTs to address roadways whose air quality rating exceeds allowed amounts. The only way to "fix" the air quality of a substandard road is to widen to improve traffic flow. To the air, a moving car is better than an idling car. "But why can't we just divert the traffic elsewhere?" you ask. You could, but that's not fixing the roadway with the problem.

Fact 3: This isn't the only issue that decides how, when and where roads get built/widened, but We, The People have created a maze of laws and we expect our federal and state agencies to comply. If not, we sue for millions (Legacy anyone?).

phalanx914 wrote:
There is no logic behind the claim that roads equal urban sprawl. Roads provide access to EXISTING points. Roads aren't built and millions of tax payer dollars aren't spent on vague hopes that people MIGHT use them. The need must be established according to legal standards.

But this article isn't about that. This is a question of quality of life, and the air we breath is a big part of that (red burn anyone?).

A few facts (and these aren't as emotionally satisfying as blaming roadways for sprawl, or those who move across the lake):

Fact 1: When a vehicle isn't moving, that vehicle produces far greater amounts of Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ozone (O3) and Particulate Matter (PM-10). Regardless of the theories of the relationship between urban sprawl and highways, more congestion on our roads means more air pollution.

Fact 2: Every DOT roadway is subjected to an air quality rating by the Federal government. Federal law requires DOTs to address roadways whose air quality rating exceeds allowed amounts. The only way to "fix" the air quality of a substandard road is to widen to improve traffic flow. To the air, a moving car is better than an idling car. "But why can't we just divert the traffic elsewhere?" you ask. You could, but that's not fixing the roadway with the problem.

Fact 3: This isn't the only issue that decides how, when and where roads get built/widened, but We, The People have created a maze of laws and we expect our federal and state agencies to comply. If not, we sue for millions (Legacy anyone?).

As for there being no proof that more roads does not create sprawl, do you see a difference in traffic on I15 now as pre-reconstruction? As the roads are built and widened, more people will move to the area until the new road is just as congested. You can keep building more and more roads, but that means people will continue to spread to everywhere they can on the new roads until congestion takes hold. Do you think Redwood road will be a free-flowing street after it is widened? Has Redwood become non-congested in South Jordan and Sandy since it was widened? If they build a bridge over the lake, more developers will feel inclined to build more subdivisions and the lake bridge will be just as congested.
On a side note, I drive a hybrid which does not use a gas engine when idling at all. Perhaps pushing alternative vehicles will reduce pollution better than asking for more roads for people to drive on?

I'm not so sure I buy the theory that if you widen a road that people will move in to fill in the space. Personally, I believe it is more that people will continue to move in despite the width of the road and widening a road only solves the problem of people moving in. I know when I built my house that it wasn't because I was looking for a road that had recently been built or even widened.