TTD board, staff ready to take fresh approach with loop road


By Kathryn Reed

STATELINE – Wiping the slate clean. That was one of the overriding messages the Tahoe Transportation District staff and board wanted people on all sides of the loop road to hear and embrace.

That doesn’t mean the proposed reroute of Highway 50 through the South Shore that has caused so much consternation has gone away. What is means is more ideas will be studied in addition to what was originally on the table.

While a loop road has been talked about since the 1980s, this is one of the few times it has gotten this far in the planning process.

A goal of a loop road -- wherever it goes -- is to make the route through the Stateline casinos a city street so the area would be more pedestrian friendly. Photo/LTN file

Better communication with the public is also a main objective as plans go forward. So many people believed decisions were being made without public input – especially the property owners who would be relocated.

To help move things forward the TTD board on Sept. 14 approved $810,828 for public planning process facilitation, preliminary engineering and design, environmental studies, and economic analysis. This brings the contract with Wood Rodgers to $2,810,828.

TTD Executive Director Carl Hasty said the additional money is available through grants. And he said, “The dollar amount reflects a worst case.” In other words, it could cost less to do the work.

Board member Norma Santiago, who represents El Dorado County, asked how the economic analysis is different from what has been done with the South Shore Vision Plan.

Hasty explained the vision plan economic study covers a larger geographic area and the study TTD has done just involved road analysis. The new study will look at the impact – good and/or bad – on businesses if the loop road were to be put in.

LSA Associates will be responsible for the environmental studies. Economic Planning System Inc. will do the economic study. Wood Rodgers will do the public outreach, preliminary engineering and technical studies.

Hasty noted the South Lake Tahoe City Council wants part of the outreach to include a public workshop that the city would televise.

TTD is the lead agency, but all the residents, housing and businesses that would need to be relocated or go by the wayside are in South Lake Tahoe. Previous city councils have agreed not to use eminent domain again. It would take a four-fifths vote to change that policy. But if all the property owners agree to sell and Caltrans signs off on the project, the city would not have much, if any, power to stop to project from going forward.

On the Sept. 18 City Council meeting is an item about the loop road.

Councilwoman Angela Swanson, who is the city’s rep on the TTD board, said with the council on Tuesday discussing the loop road, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan update, and whether to pursue the Tahoe Valley or Stateline plan, that clarity should emerge as to what the city envisions for the future. Swanson said it is her belief the council will pick the Stateline plan to pursue first, but acknowledged it still requires a vote.

Councilmen Bruce Grego, who is the city’s alternate on the TTD board, and Hal Cole were in the audience. It is unusual for councilmembers to attend meetings like this where one of their colleagues is on the board.

Grego was one of the six members of the public who spoke Friday morning. He is concerned public perception will be that the slate isn’t really wiped clean because the contentious route is still on the table.

It’s on the table so it can be thoroughly vetted – as in beyond the public emotion meter.

Hasty made it clear no additional alternatives have been worked on to date – but they will be going forward. Getting the board to approve the allocation of money and having an outreach plan were the priorities of the past few months.




About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (36)
  1. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Oh good, we’re going to spend more money on studies instead of working the the property owners to offer them more than fair pricing for their properties.

  2. Chief Slowroller says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Smoke and Mirror’s

  3. Steve says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Another $811K in public funds for another study, more “outreach” for a project most don’t need or want. The only thing these bureaucrats are good at is spending someone else’s money.

  4. lou pierini says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    More money for the TTD staff to keep their jobs for a project that will not happen unless the City of SLT signs on. Is there a VMT reduction or has that occured because of indian casinos in Ca. With the VMT drop in the last 20 years this is a usless project.

  5. ljames says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Lou makes an excellent point in that decreases in visitation have solved a lot of traffic problems in Tahoe the last few years. I think one needs to guage the long-term viability of the Stateline casino industry before altering the landscape to accomodate it. A pedestrain friendly environment is a laudable goal, but this issue has no easy solution. A four lane highway isnt exactly conducive to side walk cafe’s. Tahoe City for all its issues is certainly more pleasant to walk around, and that is mainly because the road looks like a mountain road, not a Sacramento highway.

  6. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Lou is correct about the drop in VMT’s, however, with a generally acknowledged goal of attracting more visitors back with special events, expanded outdoor recreation, etc. that would change. With the foreseeable future presenting very limited options for arrival here without a car, we have to expect (and oddly…hope for )VMT’s to increase again…at least in the summer when traffic is worst and walking / biking would be most desirable. This means that along with any potential Hwy. 50 realignment, there would also have to be a concurrent project (NOT just another plan) to implement upgrades in our public transit system including: land and water based shuttle systems, coordinated traffic lights and expanded bike lanes, paths and sidewalks.

    I still believe that splitting the through traffic between the mountain and lake side of the casinos makes much more sense than 4 lanes on the mountain side. This option is solidly back on the table according to TRPA. We already have virtually all the road width we need to route eastbound through traffic to the mountain side and westbound to the lake side. This still gives access to all the back entrances of the casino parking lots. More than likely, the footprint that the casinos currently occupy will shrink in the future…but something else would take their place. Two lanes of local traffic through the current alignment would provide access to the valet parking entrances and the new CVS building. Using existing roadways mostly eliminates the need to take out any housing or businesses. There would no doubt have to be some compromise to make room for new intersections, but nothing on the scale of what is being proposed. A properly done loop road project would improve traffic flow and greatly enhance walk/bike-ability in our current bed-base.

    Any Loop Road project MUST include a solid, funded plan for the hole. I envision a mixed-use, food & lodging, entertainment, convention and educational center. Imagine a place where not only new businesses and those relocated for Hwy 50 realignment can thrive, but also a HUGE, green constructed, high-tech multi-purpose building that could be configured for everything from conventions to large music venues that would not disrupt the alpine serenity that so many who live and visit here seek. If we ever hope to reinvent our economy while protecting our environment, we have THINK BIG to have any chance of catching up with and surpassing other destination resorts that are currently out-competing us in attracting the 21st century visitor.

  7. DougM says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    Can someone say where some of the old plans could be found? I’m new here, but I see value in a faster route across town. But it doesn’t look that hard. Pioneer trail already serves that purpose to some extent, but could be improved and made more expressway like, extending the 50mph zone and removing lights where possible. Do the same to Montreal Rd and Lake Pkwy, and link them to Pioneer, and your done, with little impact to all concerns. No superhighway. Just incremental improvements, done in increments if desired. What am I missing?

  8. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    The old plans have been removed from the web. They looked at the split which is being raised again and it was rejected for several reasons. Taking traffic closer to the lake had large negative impacts. Having traffic cut the oldest subdivision in South Lake Tahoe in half was every bit as big of an impact as the people impacted by the mountain side proposal.
    I think the only real complaints about the mountain side proposal are from people who aren’t being offered what they consider adequate compensation. It isn’t about jobs, or their businesses. It’s about I’m not being offered enough money. So, offer them the money and let’s get on with the project.

  9. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    You keep suggesting that a lakeside option for west-bound traffic is off the table but we’ve been over this before.

    I personally asked the executive director of the TRPA if that option was off the table and the answer was: “No. We will look at ALL options”. With recent advances in road runoff treatment and numerous issues with widening a 2 lane road to 4 lanes when that is not the only option means the split option is still in play. Period.

    Distilling all opposition to the 4 lane mountainside option to greed is simply nonsense. There are also many residences, not all old, that stand in the path of that option. Pedestrian / bike access to Van Sickle Park is another and there are more.

    In a past post I suggested that we should combine an aerial photo of that area with all the traffic data available and feed it to a computer with a CAD program which could combine all that info. to generate a design that would most effectively achieve the objective. This takes all the politics and nimbyism out of the equation. Then we could debte the merits of that plan along with others that have been put forward.

    Doug M.
    What was missing was the creation of a pedestrian / bike friendly corridor which a re-route would create.

  10. Local Yokle says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    The problem with a mountain side only plan is that it will take business away from the CA motels while concentrating traffic on one side and requiring addition CA motels and homes to be removed as well as a complete reallignment of all roads involved.

    By splitting the traffic to the lake side on the south bound side and to the mountain side for north bound traffic it will reduce congestion. This would require much less realignment and presumably be easier to meet environmental requirements. This would also funnel more trafic past CA motels near Stateline and not take away from their business opportunities.

    Has anyone floated the idea of turning the pit into an outdoor amphitheater with bathrooms, grass and heated walkways? Maybe a less is more approach might be doable and actually make a larger draw than a conference center that is 70 miles from the nearest international airport. Imagine a developed outdoor performance area for Snowglobe and other performances that would be welcomed rather than lamb based. A concert venue with actual bathrooms, developed food court and connection to transportation with a bus hub across the street.

    My two cents
    -Local Yokle

  11. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 15, 2012

    We’re on the same wavelength here L.Y. Minor realignment, more equitable and transit oriented. I also see a strong possibility to host musical events there…including a snowglobe type event except I see it as being enclosed and soundproof. With Stateline having the highest concentration of high-end tourist accommodations and more on the way, the low-frequency sonic pounding of a snowglobe would be out of the question.

    Imagine a HUGE building..much of it below ground level built to high environmental standards…perhaps even a living roof with a geodesic dome greenhouse in a park-like setting. The walls would be total high-tech and could project any scene from real-time outdoor conditions to the Grand Canyon to the moon. We would have a totally unique venue, very versetile in what type of event could be hosted and no one would loose any sleep over a thumping music event.

  12. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 16, 2012

    The current story about the TTD’s role in suspected fraudulent activities regarding the former transit operator for S.L.T. only reinforces the need for the community to be vigilant and intimately involved with any planning or projects they undertake. Dirty dealings in our bureaucracies are becoming an all too common story. This article and the following opinion pieces posted by Gloria Hartoonian and Mayor Claire Fortier are a good start at getting more community involvement in process that will greatly shape our future governance, infrastructure, transportation options and economy.

    We need to continue and expand this productive dialogue. Getting caught up in trivia like what was the first road in SLT or a misspelling of a word in a headline might make for a pleasant distraction but somehow strike me as analogous to Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

  13. JohnnyGP says - Posted: September 16, 2012

    Tahoe Advocate- Not looking to start anthing, but did you mean “fair pricing” or “MORE than fair pricing”? If you meant fair, I am with you. :-)

    I think we can make this change work if we commit to keeping an open mind and focus on the common good of an improved economy from tourist dollars. More outside dollars = more local jobs.

  14. DougM says - Posted: September 16, 2012

    Wait, are you guys all just talking about a road around the casinos, and little else? OMG, gotta put my outsider’s hat on and say y’all got waaaay too much time on your hands! And money to burn, apparently.

  15. Local Yokle says - Posted: September 16, 2012


    I only suggest the outdoor option as cost effective. If more could be done than great but financing being what it is and a history of failure might be dissuasive to getting things going. At this point anything would be an improvement for the pit.

    As for the roads, we do agree but I don’t think anyone is listening. I think the comment about this being about keeping research jobs may be the most accurate.

    I love the ideas!
    -Local Yokle

  16. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 16, 2012

    Thanks Local Yokle… me, exchanging ideas and civilly debating their merits is what is needed to create a community-sourced plan that will help us achieve the solidarity necessary to move our community forward.

    I acknowledge that many of my ideas are waaay out of the box and certainly costly but I believe that we are sooo far behind in reinventing ourselves that only a supreme effort will get us un-stuck from sputtering mediocrity and propel us to model community status and stability. There are funding sources looking to support innovative ideas that push boundaries BUT something that big must have broad support throughout the community.

    DougM…this is about waaay more than a 1/2 mile re-routing of Hwy. 50, it’s about changing a culture of endless planning with little implementation and some major blunders (the hole). It’s about the community designing and guiding its own future by ushering in a new era of citizen-sourced ideas and better communication between and with the many agencies that can and do influence decisions.

  17. Bill Swim says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    TTD quit spending $$$ my anwser is still no! While your at it stop the “we know what’s best attude”

  18. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    JohnnyGP—I believe that many property owners have been offered more than adequate compensation from the TTD(though not in writing) which they are willing to accept. There are at least 2 property/business owners who are asking for compensation which is unreasonable and they are not willing to negotitate with the TTD.

  19. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    Tom W— Why not create pedestrian space over the street? Build a 4 lane wide, glass wall area over the street. That way the traffic can continue to run through the corridor while a pedestrian mall runs from Mont Bleu to Tahoe Toms.
    They will have a great view of both the mountains and the lake. No new road needed. No homes or businesses displaced. In fact, new businesses created within the 4 lane wide pedestian area where shops can be installed, events held year around, rain, snow or shine.

  20. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 23, 2012


    While I applaud thinking big and far, far outside of the box, I’m sensing that the idea you’ve suggested is more tongue-in-cheek than serious. Please forgive me if I’m wrong…..but a glass enclosed pedestrian mall built above Hwy. 50 between Mont Bleu and Park Ave./ Heavenly Village Way?
    That’s too much for even me to contemplate and I’ve been known to promulgate some pretty high-flown ideas. The difference in building heights through that corridor and astronomical cost of construction alone would render that completely out of the question.

    While the displacement and relocation of ANY business or residence is traumatic for those directly affected, this town’s lay-out was not really planned…it was just cobbled together as needs arose and then changed. We are now paying the price for such random development. As the old tried but true saying goes: ‘The only constant in life is change’ and change we must if we hope to compete in the 21st century.

    Can we at least agree that the east / west split is still an option and that the hole must be part of the overall plan to create a more walkable / bikeable / vibrant corridor?

  21. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    The idea was not so tougue-in-cheek. The cost to do something like that might not be as expensive as new road construction. I’ve seen it done on smaller scale or think of it like the concourses at airports. It allows a pedestrian gatherings with retail while there is traffic below.
    As far as random development, SLT started developing in the 1860s with hotels along the Lincoln Hwy (Hwy 50). The area around Hwy 50 at the Stateline to the beach was owned by one family and included both Lakeside Park and the Tahoe Meadows. Lakeside Park was the first subdivision established in 1909. There are properties still standing today from the 1920s. Bike paths and pedestrian walkways are planned for the Lakeside Area to accomodate the tens of thousands for tourists who walk to and use the beach from the core tourist area. IF Hwy 50 IS TO BE REROUTED, we should route it away from those thousands of people who deal with the traffic through the casino area today. Give the people generating tax dollars for the city a more enjoyable area to walk without having to deal with highway traffic.

  22. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    Tom—-I’ve put some further thought into the elevated pedestrian space idea. It has to cost less than road construction anywhere. It would be unique for a mountain resort. Stroll the area while looking at the mountains and lake without fear of being hit by a car. It would interconnect all the properties in the core area as It would takes tens of thousands of people and get them away from the highway traffic while giving the bi-state area an event venue equal to no other. Walk indoors from your hotel room to the gondola. Walk indoors to the ???? (whatever becomes of the TAHOLE). The pedestrian space could be designed to be an open roof in the summer while closed in the winter. The more I think about it the more I like it.
    It also eliminates the battleground between the people who want the loop road and those who don’t. This way there is no loop.

  23. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    More thoughts…. At the South end, don’t stop at Park Avenue but continue it down to the area around Pioneer Trail. This gives a raised pedestrian area with protected access to the businesses in that area as well such as the Crescent V shopping center, the Holiday Inn Express, Park Tahoe, the Naked Fish Restaurant, etc. thereby integrating all the businesses along this core area with the traffic flowing beneath the walkway area.

  24. Biggerpicture says - Posted: September 23, 2012


    Who would be paying to build this? Who would pay to maintain and clean this structure? How about snowload?

    Sounds like an interesting idea, but many negatives involved, not even mentioning coverage, which is a huge TRPA issue.

    But I do appreciate your forward vision!

  25. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    There is no coverage since it’s going in over existing coverage.
    The big issue is who pays. Since it isn’t a road, I doubt the TTD would pay unless it could be included in a road transportation project which gets funded like the loop would.
    Snowload can be handled in the design. Buildings with retractible roofs are used in snow areas around the country. The issue of where the snow goes from the roof is a challenge but that’s what they pay those consultants for. The positive would be the the road underneath would not have any significant snow fut the areas along side the road would.

  26. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 23, 2012

    I complement you on your knowledge of South Tahoe history Advocate, and your point about putting a two lane throughway too close to the Lakeside beach area is well taken. And as BP pointed out, visionary thinking is vital to finding long-term, sustainable solutions. I do share his concerns about snow load (and ice chunks falling off over an Interstate Hwy.) and TRPA regs about coverage, height, scenic impact, etc. . . .issues that an elevated skyway would raise. Integrating such a walkway with existing structures of varying heights, materials and frontage alignment plus accounting for wind and seismic factors presents a Gordian Knot of engineering challenges. …it also does not address how bicycles would access the skyway.
    Never-the-less, a scaled down version could be easily envisioned.

    Perhaps, one approach to west-bound realignment would be to follow the existing section of Loop Rd. past Edgewood and then from Stateline Ave., move the alignment further south creating a buffer to the Lakeside area. Pedestrian access from the casino core and a completed hole project could be accomplished with bike / ped overpass / skyway hybrids. Obviously, that means some mostly older lodging structures would have to be removed and businesses re-located to a now much more evolved ‘hole’ area.

    Any approach to re-imagining and re-engineering that core zone will come with the need for in-depth financial analysis, all current data on traffic patterns and a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.
    I admit there is a slim chance for solidarity…..but I’ll keep pitching it!

  27. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    The Vision presented by the STAR group which includes the reroute of Hwy 50 emphasizes the need for pedestrian friendly areas. Since their major supporter (Edgewood Properties)owns the land on both sides of the road to the country club all the way to the Stateline, I doubt you can run Hwy 50 on the lake side loop. As far as the challenges which you’ve identified to build an elevated , these are just engineering and regulation issues. The height would be below TRPA limits. The multi dimensional buildings it must interface with are simply design requirements. The bicycle issue needs more thought but it’s not a deal killer.
    I fear that we are building a road when their might be other options which have never been considered.
    The biggest hurdle to this bi-state elevated pedestrian space is “who pays for it” if road money can’t.

  28. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    As long as Edgewood doesn’t own the road itself, I don’t see how they could stop that option if it rose to the top. From what I’ve seen, Edgewood has demonstrated its’ willingness to work cooperatively with the community at large and be good environmental stewards with their upgrades to the Edgewood Creek drainage and LEED building pracitices. Would love for them to weigh in on this conversation.

  29. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    I agree that Edgewood expresses cooperation. They do things first class. If I were developing a 5 Star resort on one side of the parkway and planning a new indoor/outdoor concert area on the other side while planning to redevelop the Horizon property I would not be cooperative in allowing a highway to cut it in half.

  30. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    The super wide Loop Road already bisects that property…not much would change, just more traffic going one direction. Landscaping and low sound walls would dampen traffic noise and a somewhat curvy route would keep speeds reasonable. Perhaps a skyway would link whatever takes the Horizon’s place with Edgewood golf course / hotel complex.

  31. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    There are no semi-trucks and only light traffic today on lakeside pkwy to the stop sign at the stateline and then on Pine Blvd to Park Ave. Many pedestrians and bicyclists use it. I can’t see why we would want to run highway traffic noise and pollution through that neighborhood and that close to the lake, any more than what is being proposed behind Raley’s and then turning down to Pioneer Trail. It won’t create pedestrian friendly areas between the tourist core and the Lake. I’m back to my skyway (your name and a good one)idea over the existing hwy 50.

  32. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    And I’m still suggesting we feed all relevant data and an aerial image of the core zone into a computer and see what plan a totally neutral and objective CAD program comes up with. It might be something nobody’s even dreamed up yet…

  33. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    Let’s hope so.

  34. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: September 24, 2012

    What would they do with their big park in the middle of hwy 50 in the winter? Caltrans is not going to clear it of snow, better make sure tourists don’t slip and slide, guess you could make it heated.

    South Lake Tahoe is not going to pull eminent domain on it’s residents for a Stateline project, or anyone else for that matter.

    The hwy is fine the way it is, nice and straight, why would anyone want to make some weird bent highway, speeds would have to drastically slow down due to the curves.

    Go make your park/public square on your private property. Harvey’s makes a huge concert area out of it’s parking lot every summer, and now now Mont Bleu is doing the same. Why can’t the Horizon property?

    It would be better yet if you casino owners would put a little money into infrastructure and landscaping, to make these outside spaces look inviting. Harvey’s and Horizon could definitely work together to make a large sized outdoor venue, when needed.

    Anything would be more reasonable, then coming to the tax payer for your remodeling needs, and kicking a bunch of residents and business owners out of their locations, at tax payer expense!

    Get more creative, take care of your own business, or maybe your business is dying if you can’t make it run without government pitching in.

  35. Tom Wendell says - Posted: September 25, 2012

    You raise some valid points as well as some red herrings and I will attempt to address them:

    “What would they do with their big park in the middle of hwy 50 in the winter? Caltrans is not going to clear it of snow, better make sure tourists don’t slip and slide, guess you could make it heated.”

    There would be no “big park” but a two lane city street cleared by Douglas Co. In NV. and the City in CA. Bordering that would be a bike / pedestrian friendly corridor..likely hydronically heated like Heavenly Village is.

    “South Lake Tahoe is not going to pull eminent domain on it’s residents for a Stateline project, or anyone else for that matter.”

    The City Council has repeatedly asserted that they will not use eminent domain and that is a good thing. Caltrans however can but would be unlikely to if the city is so set against it. As has been pointed out in several other articles, many (if not most) of the aging lodging properties surrounding Stateline are running well below occupancy rates necessary to make them financially sustainable. Even if they had or could borrow the money, those owners are rightfully hesitant to upgrade their properties due to the many uncertainties in the general and local economy, a complicated permitting system and a lack of a clear plan for the area. It would be easy to identify the poorest performing properties and offer the owners fair compensation for their property. I would suggest that a percentage of those owners would like to retire or move on and would welcome a buy-out. Properties that are financially viable could be offered space in the hole area where they would become part of a new, green built center for lodging, food, entertainment, education, recreation and conventions.

    “The hwy is fine the way it is, nice and straight, why would anyone want to make some weird bent highway, speeds would have to drastically slow down due to the curves.”

    The Hwy. in its current state is a bad joke. There are 5 traffic signals (6 if you count Pioneer Tr. /Hwy. 50) through that corridor (talk about slow speeds!). The constant stop-no-go driving greatly increases pollution, noise and travel time–not to mention it’s frustrating as hell. A gently curving route with 1 or 2 stops at most would greatly reduce pollution, noise, travel time and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

    “Go make your park/public square on your private property.”

    Do I really have to point out the oxymoron here??

    “Harvey’s makes a huge concert area out of it’s parking lot every summer, and now Mont Bleu is doing the same. Why can’t the Horizon property?”

    Edgewood owns the property occupied by the Horizon which is floundering and they have other plans for it

    “Harvey’s and Horizon could definitely work together to make a large sized outdoor venue, when needed.”

    See above.

    “Anything would be more reasonable, then coming to the tax payer for your remodeling needs, and kicking a bunch of residents and business owners out of their locations, at tax payer expense!”

    Do you hear that giant sucking sound? It’s our tax dollars being used to partially fill in the gaps left by the hole debacle and declining TOT revenues. Would it not make more sense to upgrade an area that is no longer viable in the marketplace of the 21st Century? What we have to do is discard old, out-dated business models and start thinking like futurist Alvin Toffler who famously said: “The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” And perhaps more to the point: “Idea-assassins rush forward to kill any new suggestion on the grounds of its impracticality, while defending whatever now exists as practical, no matter how absurd.”

    “Get more creative, take care of your own business, or maybe your business is dying if you can’t make it run without government pitching in.”

    There is allot of creativity being expressed on this thread as well as a lot of nimbyism and opinion vs. facts. We all pay taxes to the Feds when we buy gas and that money is to maintain and upgrade our highway system. The funding for re-aligning Hwy.50, an Interstate Highway, comes from those taxes. Why do you have a problem with actually using them when the outcome would produce a more attractive, efficient, environmentally responsible and financially viable core zone?