Though we don't always see eye to eye, I can say today that I am in complete agreement with a comment in your Tuesday editorial, "The driving force behind gridlock." Specifically, you stated, "Especially in Las Vegas, road construction should be a major part of any gridlock solution."
Advertisement
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada board and staff agree. Our vision is to provide a safe, convenient and effective regional transportation system that improves mobility for our citizens and visitors.
One element of our commitment is evidenced by the road projects being funded by the RTC: the Bruce L. Woodbury Beltway, the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl, the Sahara Avenue Superarterial, the North Fifth Street Superarterial, the widening of Eastern Avenue and Project Neon.
While we agree that we need to continue to build and improve our roadway network, equally critical is the need to develop more transportation choices. The RTC is not only the transit agency for Clark County; it is also the governor's designated transportation planning agency for Southern Nevada. As such, we have equally important missions to select which roads and which transit projects will be funded, and do so in a way that doesn't worsen our air quality.
The simple fact is our community is growing at an astoundingly fast rate. According to the Clark County Community Growth Task Force, 11 people move to our valley every hour. Based on 2000 U.S. Census and Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles data, more than 100 cars are added to our roadway system every day. These new residents and their vehicles create additional demand, and we simply must continue to expand our roadway network where possible to meet that demand.
Unlike the 5 percent increase in road capacity your editorial pegged as the national average, our commitment to the construction of new roads speaks for itself. Since 1980, we have increased our freeway lane miles by 293 percent and our arterial lane miles by 283 percent. And through 2025 we are expecting the current 663 freeway lane miles to grow to 1,060, and the 4,725 arterial lane miles of today to grow to 6,640.
That said, know that we will never pave our way out of congestion. The solution is not only roads, nor is it only transit, bicycling or walking, or even changing the way we develop. It is all of these things. To improve our overall mobility, we must provide ways to expand the capacity of the transportation system.
One small start in providing choices is the Citizens Area Transit bus system. While considered effective and cost-efficient by transit industry standards, carrying more than 52 million passengers last year on 305 buses, it is not the transit alternative for everyone. The Metropolitan Area Express, Club Ride Commuter Services and the Regional Fixed Guideway are all options that will help meet the transportation needs that roads alone do not.
The Metropolitan Area Express provides rail-like service on Las Vegas Boulevard North and is being planned for Boulder Highway. The Regional Fixed Guideway is being researched by a citizen committee to recommend a technology and other specifics for a regional rail or rail-like system throughout the valley. I encourage every reader to learn more at www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rfg.
We need to set our sights on a future that includes a more comprehensive roadway system than we have today. This future includes transit options to meet many different lifestyle and travel demands -- options that encourage non-motorized travel by actually making it fast, clean, safe and even enjoyable.
The only way to traverse this long and rocky road is to do it together, building on the creativity and ingenuity that made this community what it is today.
Jacob L. Snow
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER IS GENERAL MANAGER OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
Who are the liberals?
To the editor:
The Review-Journal's Thursday editorial, "A right to make this decision" was quite interesting. Not because it defined the U.S. Supreme Court's decision concerning medical marijuana as misguided, but the manner in which it singled out the high court's "liberals."
Although the adjective "liberal" is used, the adjective "activist" is curiously absent. I find that interesting because it has been the Review-Journal's recent trend to label justices and judges as "activist" when they defy the will of the people.
Allow me to state that I'm in total agreement with the editorial's opinion that these justices were misguided, at best, when they "opted to sanction the government's prosecution of sick people rather than acknowledge the Ninth and 10th Amendments." And I'm totally disappointed with the four liberal justices -- Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- for not upholding states' rights, when having done so would not compromise the Constitution.
This was a 6-3 decision with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissenting. That leaves the ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia and the right-leaning moderate Anthony Kennedy siding with the four liberals.
Yet the Review-Journal chose to emphasize only the "liberal" involvement in the decision. Were it not for Justices Scalia and Kennedy, the Justice Department's appeal would have faltered.
That being the case and knowing the recent Review-Journal trend concerning justices and judges defying the will of the people, shouldn't Justices Scalia and Kennedy now be identified as "activists"? Or is that paint brush reserved exclusively for liberals?
Terry E. Peele
LAS VEGAS
Anger is not bigotry
To the editor:
Bruce Mason, in his Wednesday letter, gave an important reminder that all people should be treated with civility. However, I do not think he quite understands what makes people so angry about illegal immigration.
It is not ignorant hatred of an ethnic group (even though, according to the federal government, Mexicans make up the vast majority of illegals -- well more than 5 million). It is simple frustration with lawbreakers.
I do not want illegal immigrants to be abused. I do want them actively searched out and quickly transported to the border with a minimum of procedure and expense. I do not want them to have access to taxpayer-funded services, and I do not think their children should get citizenship just for being born here.
It must be recognized that there is a difference between being anti-immigrant -- which is absurdly ignorant for anyone but an American Indian -- and being anti-lawbreaker. There are legitimate reasons to be angry here, and that anger should not be compared with bigotry.
Matt Rosenberg
LAS VEGAS
Protect the children
To the editor:
Thomas Shaw doesn't want his son "in that dark place." What place would that be? Locked in his room or the place his mind takes him after being beaten to a pulp ("Parental rights challenges increase," Monday)?
Was a pediatrician or counselor ever consulted before this child was locked in his room, where he not only couldn't drink anything but also couldn't use the bathroom? Could this home remedy possibly have contributed to his failing grades as a teen?
As a former foster mother who adopted our foster child, I can tell you first-hand efforts are made to reunite children with their parents. If the Shaws haven't spoken to their son since July it probably is because the boy doesn't want the contact. Would you?
If the parents have worked through their case plan, the child would be returned. Nowhere in the article is there positive testimony from anyone on the fitness of these parents.
If a child is returned to a home and suffers more abuse, we all point fingers at social services and accuse them of not doing their jobs. I'm sure it would make the front page as well.
I applaud the efforts to protect this child and others who have suffered. Let's put the welfare of children first, and if we err, let it be on the side of caution for the safety of those we should protect.
Teresa Cookson
HENDERSON
The cabdriver mafia
To the editor:
I am writing to express my support of Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, and his efforts to eliminate the kickbacks cabbies receive for bringing unwitting tourists to favored businesses.
This practice hearkens back to the mob days of Las Vegas. And the way the cabbies have reacted reminds me of the old extortion rackets, too.
They threaten to shut down the Strip if the governor doesn't let them keep their kickback system? That's blackmail. The governor should have signed the bill into law.
One final thought: The cabbies themselves say the kickbacks amount to 50 percent of their income. Their spokesman says it's $1,000 a year. Which is it? And where's the IRS in all of this? Are the cabbies reporting $1,000 or the tens of thousands of dollars they claim to make from the extortion of business owners?
RSS
Twitter
Facebook