Apparently, they're not interested in receiving written/email comments. At least I didn't see such an offer anywhere on the notice.
FYI, I attended a meeting a couple years ago and said they needed to consider "positive financial incentives" for people to drive less (miles) [many auto insurance companies have offered lower auto insurance fees/rates for vehicles driven < 8,000 miles/yr. - I've personally taken advantage of that option for years! I also told them at that meeting to look into coordinating transit options with local areas/communities [eg. EPIC runs buses from Madison to their campus in Verona] who the DOTs own data show vehicles heavily commuting to and from Madison, and using the Beltine daily. These two options would greatly reduce the need to expand the vehicular capacity of the Madison Beltline, which will impose a heavy toll on all of us, users and nonusers of the expanded Beltline, the many families and businesses that are located adjacent to the Beltline, and the other broader increased environmental related costs associated with heavier use of the expanded Beltline, including small particle air pollution and additional contributions of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere and oceans. But of course DOT is being politically pressured into adding more concrete lanes and bridges, an option which would keep the road construction industry and the politicians beholding to them here happy; but unfortunately to the harm of most everyone else, including future generations. Much of the fuel burned in cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc., (planes) is undoubted derived from crude originating from Alberta tar sands region. Wisconsin DNR gave Enbrige Co. approval for it to pipe 1.2 million barrels of tars sands processed oil across Wisconsin (including Dane County) in 2007. They did that without even doing an EIS on that expansion - in spite of the FACT that more such toxic crude oil is pumped by Enbridge Co. to the Midwest with that pipeline than even the proposed Keystone pipeline would deliver! And now they are proposing yet another pipeline (side-by-side to the existing pipeline) to deliver yet even more hundreds of thousands of barrels of tar sands crude to Midwest refineries for processing. Tar sands oil is the worst possible fuel one could burn because it requires so much additional fuel burning (and greenhouse gas emissions) and additional disruption of the planet (can't see the forest through the oil), let alone the energy and potential pollution of the pipeline's inevitable leakage. www.allthingsenvironmental.com
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
