Posted on 02/01/2010 3:36:16 PM PST by dragnet2
Because of budget cuts here in Colorado Springs, you may notice the city is a little darker. In an effort to save $1.2 million a year, 8,000-10,000 street lights, about 30 percent, will be turned off over the course of the next 10 weeks.
The first neighborhood affected will be in the southwest quadrant of the city. After they finish those neighborhoods, they'll move to the north and to the east. The bottom line is, all parts of the city will be affected.
Some are concerned it could increase crime. A city spokesman tells 11 News tonight the police department weighed in on what lights could be unplugged.
Of course I see something wrong with turning off part of the light grid. There's a reason they were installed in the first place. But if they don't have the money to run it, they don't have the money. Period. There's nothing "liberal" and big government about it.
You're going to have to answer your own questions from here on out.
shades of things to come. liberals/socialist/marxists or whatever greedy bastards are out there have killed the golden goose.
At this rate the US will shortly look like N Korea at night.
On the one hand might actually be able to see the stars again, on the other the animals will be roaming with impunity
Your argument makes no sense.
Hmmm???
There's nothing "liberal" and big government about it.
Hmmm...Ya sure?
Some of us go home after work and don't get to FReep as much as we would like.
Now, to answer your questions:
1) I didn't say anything about corruption. My comment was that the voters put the people in place who are causing the problem. As a group, the voters are unlikely to make any better choices or to identify the true problem in the future.
2) Whether or not they are Republicans is irrelevant. We know from plenty of sad experience that a Republican can be just a liberal as the day is long.
Ya mean like Bush?
Please elaborate.
“Of course, I think government street lights are a joke, and a totally unnecessary tax burden... “
As a highway engineer, I would have to disagree.
Highway lighting serves several important purposes. On heavily travelled roadways, illuminating the roadway reduces night time and bad weather crashes. Lighting justification procedures (yes they do exist and are used) require an evaluation of the number of night-time crashes and the amount of traffic on the road. This also includes a cost-benefit analysis.
On urban and suburban arterial highways with a lot of commercial development, highway lighting is used to provide consistent illumination. Light falls on the road from illimunated signs and parking lots, but it does so in a very inconsistant manner. A lot of light would come from a dealership, but very little from a school or church on the next block. The result is that drivers’ eyes are constantly having to adjust from very bright zones to very dark zones, significantly hindering the driver’s ability to see hazards (particularly older drivers). Highway lighting is used to “smooth out” roadway illumination.
Of course in residential areas, street lighting plays a key role in reducing property crime.
Ya mean like Bush?
Please elaborate.
Stop you your political groupie BS....Bush spent money like a drunken lotto winner, and aided and abetted a violent illegal invasion of millions from the south, during war time, and supported liberal policies, as he passed off power to some amateur inner city communist from Chicago....And you snivel, asking for specifics? How pathetic is that? lol...
A government employee?
Tell me, why did you engineers design all of our highways in such a way where they are now gridlocked with traffic in all the cities? It's become an embarrassing, counter productive joke...What's up with that?
By the way, I love your moniker, but wouldn't, "trafficjam" be more appropriate?
This is out of the scope of the corrupt government officials turning off the lights in Colorado Springs......But do you understand most property crimes like burglaries, and theft in neighborhoods occur in broad day light when most are at work?
Thank you! Very interesting and useful information. Your points are well taken. Gee, what a difference it makes when someone who knows what they are talking about explains something, as opposed to my generally ignorant grasp of a subject.
What’s the story on yellow lights? Is there a standard setting for length based on objective conditions such as speed limit, road surface, etc.?
There is a standard length range for yellow lights- 3 to 6 seconds. The duration is based on the speed of approaching vehicles. Consideration is given to the fact that drivers are used to yellow lights lasting a certain length. That is why you don’t (or shouldn’t) see 1.5 and 2 second lengths on slow roads and 7 or 8 second lengths on faster roads.
“A government employee?”
No, I do not work for the government. Thankfully, I do have a job. For now.
“Tell me, why did you engineers design all of our highways in such a way where they are now gridlocked with traffic in all the cities? It’s become an embarrassing, counter productive joke...What’s up with that?”
That is a question for your elected officials. You can ask them why they have allowed the planning of where to build what get hijacked by activists, agitators and community organizers who have no background in engineering or traffic management. In other words, you have people who hate cars writing planning policies with the stated goal of increasing gridlock in order to force drivers onto city buses and bicycles.
Community organizers? Activist? lol....What cockn'bull response is this?
Our cities are gridlocked because of the greedy AHs in contracting, construction, the greedy real estate developers, along with their insider buddies running the corrupt cities and counties, that only care about more tax bucks.... As they jammed tens of millions of people onto roads and highways that they knew damn well were designed for a *fraction* of the people.
You're a highway engineer? You should know this.
No, I do not work for the government. Thankfully, I do have a job. For now.
Good for you, but as a private sector highway engineer, you're going to get hammered, as they are going to be building or improving a lot less highways, as the poor slobs in the private sector are "taxed out" and have nothing else to give to the greedy corrupt insiders running the cities, counties and states.
Contractors don’t decide where to construct roads, when to construct roads, or what kind of roads to construct. To what extent they grease the political wheels to get a contract is another discussion.
Large developments are typically required to mitigate for the impact they create on the local infrastructure. That mitigation can come in the form of improvements made by the developer, or cash payments to the local government. For example, if I want to build a 5,000 unit developement on a two lane road three miles from the end of the four lane section, I can either widen that three miles of roadway, or I could pay the local government enough money to do the work. Developers prefer the former because they can get it built quicker and cheaper. Government prefers the latter because they can spend the money on whatever they want.
The result is the developer pays the governmnt $18 million, and adds the cost to the price of the lots. The government spends $8 million on minor roadway improvements (tunr lanes and a traffic signal) and the rest on vote buying schemes.
Ferrrget it....lol...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.