NSC Latest by SRTC Staff | Apr 26, 2010 | Uncategorized | 10 comments We get asked all the time what the state of the North Spokane Corridor is. Here’s a Spokesman-Review article that has all the latest. 10 Comments Anonymous on April 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm Rush is exactly right. Either toll this thing or stop it. It will be obsolete by time of completion. Rush is the only one who isn't drinking the kool-aid of land speculators. Kudos to you Mr. Rush. Shame on all the rest. slehman on April 27, 2010 at 6:03 pm I don't believe Mr. Rush was here back in the days when the Maple Street Bridge was a toll bridge. If he had been, he would know that it generated very little revenue as people around here just don't feel like they should have to pay tolls. Drivers found other ways to get north or south, jamming up the other arterials. The day the toll came off that bridge, traffic on it picked up a huge amount. That's what would happen if you toll the NSC. The trucks and congestion we're trying to get off other roads wouldn't pay to use the freeway, and would continue to clog north-south arterials. The NSC would be used minimally and members of the public would be angry. Take the toll off though and all those people I talk to on a daily basis who ask about when the freeway will be done would use it. Anonymous on April 27, 2010 at 9:01 pm I don't follow your logic. According to earlier posts of yours, the NSC is mainly for freight. Thus, civilian traffic should be encouraged to stay away to decrease congestion (otherwise we will just have a second division). What happens when the NSC is at capacity in 2030? Add more lanes? Build another one? I don't think you like either of those ideas. Or do you? slehman on April 27, 2010 at 9:13 pm Obviously you wouldn't build a freeway just for trucks. Of course civilian traffic will use it as well. Taking a percentage of cars off other arterials and putting them onto the NSC will help with congestion on arterials. And moving trucks off the arterials will get things moving on them again. And we wouldn't have a second Division no matter what because there aren't stop lights every half mile on the NSC. What happens when the freeway hits capacity? By then there are going to be tight restrictions on vehicle miles travelled so I think there will be more people finding alternate ways to commute- such as by bicycle on the pathway being built next to the freeway, or on the buses that will use the park and ride lots along the freeway, or the vanpools that are growing immensely in popularity. Anonymous on April 27, 2010 at 9:30 pm You're right, the gov. wants to reduce vmt within the next couple of decades. So when it finally gets built, nobody can use it. LOL great idea team. Build a freeway we won't be able to use in a few years. When I see the tens of thousands of people who will be needing to ride their bikes along the NSC by 2050 to match state goals, I'll eat my words, unfortunately that will not happen. slehman on April 27, 2010 at 9:39 pm Well we both agree on that anyway. There is no realistic way we can meet the governor's VMT reduction goals, which is to reduce total vehicle miles travelled by 50% by the year 2050. So the NSC will still be getting it's share of traffic. Hopefully by a lot of people who are carpooling, riding the bus, and vanpooling. Anonymous on April 27, 2010 at 9:52 pm We may not meet them, but we should try. Building a freeway is in direct contrast with the attempt to meet that goal (despite what you say about the bike/ped path, and transit/carpooling we both know the truth is that neither will do anything to seriously reduce vmt). The only way to reduce vmt is for people to live closer to the things they need. In philosophy, if you agree we should be trying to reach vmt goals(even if they are unrealistic) then you should oppose this project. Do you agree we should work to reduce vmt srtc? slehman on April 27, 2010 at 11:33 pm Of course we want to work to reduce VMT. And even if we didn't, it's not really an option to NOT participate as it's more of an order than a suggestion from the Governor. I understand about urban density and preventing urban sprawl, but in this case it's already there, so I don't feel that the NSC is going to promote it. Anonymous on April 28, 2010 at 8:05 pm I'm sorry srtc but you are terribly mistaken. Point me to ONE instance where a freeway improving travel times from undeveloped areas to a central city has not led to further development and I'll rest my case. There is plenty of land out north to be developed if access is improved. Don't you read the journal of business? They did an article about how developers are excited about it's completion and they are just sitting on land. You know that, so don't say something foolish like that the NSC will not promote sprawl. Also if it will not be an option to not participate then why don't you start now? slehman on April 28, 2010 at 8:18 pm Have you been up that way recently Anonymous?? There are already housing developments coming out our ears in the area where the freeway is, and past it. Sure, there's going to be more development when the freeway comes along, but there's also more development way the heck up south and south of the Valley where there isn't a freeway and there aren't any plans for one. People are sprawling all over the place- with or without the freeway. I'm not happy about it either but I don't think the NSC is going to be the cause of the apocolypse as you make it sound. As for VMT, we HAVE started. A long time ago. We've been talking about VMT and the governor's edicts and how to handle them since they came out. You should attend an SRTC Board or TTC meeting once in a while. Submit a CommentYou must be logged in to post a comment.