Brownsboro Road reconstruction--again

Probably not in direct response to my questions about the opponents' reasons for resistance to the Road Diet plan for Brownsboro Road in the Clifton area, but I'm glad to see it nonetheless:

Several folks involved in the plan and advocacy for the road diet have put up a site to refute the opposition from the folks who brought us "Save42." The site name is a clever twist on the opposition's site name--safe42.org--and gives real information instead of simply pooh-poohing the opponents' claims.

If you read the paper or follow the televised news (the latter of which I generally ignore), you've heard the claims--businesses will go under for lack of customers because nobody will want to drive on that road because it will be so clogged with folks who can't get anywhere because there are only two travel lanes (never mind the "suicide lane" in the middle...) because, well, the whole project was developed in secret without input from anybody with skin in the game.

Never mind that I've known about the efforts for over a year, and I don't even live in that neighborhood. Never mind that public meetings on the topic get advertised in Councilwoman Tina Ward-Pugh's weekly newsletter, along with ways to contact folks who would have some influence.

I've wanted to reach out to opponents and address their concerns respectfully. Having read some of their missives, it's hard to respect their attitudes, let alone their stance. I am convinced of the value of reconstructing Brownsboro Road as planned, but want them to be as well. The more I read of their objections, though, the harder it is for me to take them seriously. I realize that part of their reality is that "more lanes = less congestion," although that idea gets debunked fairly often (build more lanes? more people will use them and clog them as badly as before).

I especially enjoyed reading Ms Ward-Pugh's letter to Jim Dahlem and his group of oppositionists. It lays out their misinformation campaign and points out that there was no secrecy in planning the road diet. They had chance after chance to bring forth data that would refute the notion that the road diet would be a positive step, and either ignored or refused those opportunities. This, of course, suggests that they had no data to bring to the table--only misrepresentation and fear of changes that would be good for the locals at minimal expense to through traffic.

Once the road diet is done, I wonder what Dahlem and his crowd will say when the businesses along there start flourishing? What happens when they find that they can get through there with less stress and no real loss of time after all? Will they apologize?

I doubt it.