Mass residents buy home near Interstate, want taxpayers to improve property

[John S]

This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.
----
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "


Full Articles:
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

[NYC ROAD GEEK]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

You know I hate that, when the LIE (I-495) was planned to be widened
here in Queens (NYC), residents were opposed. The expressway has been
there for about 50 years! Surely there resdents knew that the LIE would
be widened sooner or later! But no, they made us eliminate the shoulder
to widen it so now the road is less congested but also less safe
becuase of these knuckleheads. With proposals to widen it further west
where the expresway has been since the 40s (some spots since the late
30s!), residents were vigerously opposed. Why did you move by the
expressway if you didnt like the traffic? I live near a parkway and it
was there when I moved, if they proposed to widen it, I need to accept
that it was my choice to live there in the first place. Dont cause
backups just becasuse you have to have your way, NIMBYs!

----

Post by John S
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

[NYC ROAD GEEK]

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

You know I hate that, when the LIE (I-495) was planned to be widened
here in Queens (NYC), residents were opposed. The expressway has been
there for about 50 years! Surely there resdents knew that the LIE would
be widened sooner or later! But no, they made us eliminate the shoulder
to widen it so now the road is less congested but also less safe
becuase of these knuckleheads. With proposals to widen it further west
where the expresway has been since the 40s (some spots since the late
30s!), residents were vigerously opposed. Why did you move by the
expressway if you didnt like the traffic? I live near a parkway and it
was there when I moved, if they proposed to widen it, I need to accept
that it was my choice to live there in the first place. Dont cause
backups just becasuse you have to have your way, NIMBYs!

I forgot to mention in my previous post that it is also the state's
responsibility not to antagonize the situation; install sound walls
when freeways are being widened. But also, NIMBYs, be fair.

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK
----

Post by John S
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

[Mike Tantillo]

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

You know I hate that, when the LIE (I-495) was planned to be widened
here in Queens (NYC), residents were opposed. The expressway has been
there for about 50 years! Surely there resdents knew that the LIE would
be widened sooner or later! But no, they made us eliminate the shoulder
to widen it so now the road is less congested but also less safe
becuase of these knuckleheads. With proposals to widen it further west
where the expresway has been since the 40s (some spots since the late
30s!), residents were vigerously opposed. Why did you move by the
expressway if you didnt like the traffic? I live near a parkway and it
was there when I moved, if they proposed to widen it, I need to accept
that it was my choice to live there in the first place. Dont cause
backups just becasuse you have to have your way, NIMBYs!

Well, being fair here, there is one thing you left out of your story.

Originally, the widening was to not add any new general purpose lanes
to the road, and would only add HOV lanes. The way the HOV lanes are
signed and striped, it would be impossible for a Queens resident in the
neighborhoods adjoining the LIE to be able to use them (If you got on
then going east from Manhattan, you can't get off until Exit 37 in
Roslyn).

Additonally, the nature of widening the highway in the area "changes
the game". The folks in Massachusetts that the OP posted about are
complaining about an existing freeway that is not being changed in any
way. They should have known better. People in Queens next to teh LIE
may have thought that the current arrangement is acceptable, but that
any bigger would diminish their property values. And its sort of a
slippery slope....maybe now your only adding one lane, but if you add
another lane a few years later, and another a decade after that, its
the equivalent of one mega improvement done in small steps. So these
people have a right to complain and demand mitigation measures.

I think the thing that really makes Queens residents in this case have
a right to complain is looking at where the growth is occurring. The
reason why the road in Queens needs to be widening isnt because the
residents of Queens voted to approve a ton of new development....its
because residents of eastern Suffolk County approved a ton of
development. But way out east of NY 112, the LIE has a lot of spare
capacity, so ironically, the road doesn't need to be widened where the
development is occurring, but someplace 40 miles west of there. If I
lived in that part of Queens, I'd be angry too, that someone else's
irresponsible decisions were the cause of a road widening im my
neighborhood.

So since we have to be sensitive to everyone's needs, I think the LIE
in eastern Queens can be viewed as a success, a good compromise, or in
planner terms, a "context sensitive solution". The road was widened to
accomodate the traffic from the HOV lane in Nassau County. The lane
can be used by people travelling to/from eastern Queens, so eastern
Queens residents benefit from it. They didn't really have to widen the
footprint of the roadway very much and therefore didn't harm the
neighborhood the way the original plan would have. But regardless,
significant changes to the road were made which would likely mean more
traffic on the highway, so the area is getting its sound walls. Only a
fairly small segment of the widening is completely shoulderless anyway.
Now if they had completely stopped the project, then I'd say, "damn
those NIMBY's!"

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK
----

Post by John S
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

[NYC ROAD GEEK]

Post by Mike Tantillo

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

You know I hate that, when the LIE (I-495) was planned to be widened
here in Queens (NYC), residents were opposed. The expressway has been
there for about 50 years! Surely there resdents knew that the LIE would
be widened sooner or later! But no, they made us eliminate the shoulder
to widen it so now the road is less congested but also less safe
becuase of these knuckleheads. With proposals to widen it further west
where the expresway has been since the 40s (some spots since the late
30s!), residents were vigerously opposed. Why did you move by the
expressway if you didnt like the traffic? I live near a parkway and it
was there when I moved, if they proposed to widen it, I need to accept
that it was my choice to live there in the first place. Dont cause
backups just becasuse you have to have your way, NIMBYs!

Well, being fair here, there is one thing you left out of your story.
Originally, the widening was to not add any new general purpose lanes
to the road, and would only add HOV lanes. The way the HOV lanes are
signed and striped, it would be impossible for a Queens resident in the
neighborhoods adjoining the LIE to be able to use them (If you got on
then going east from Manhattan, you can't get off until Exit 37 in
Roslyn).

You're right. One time I was in a car with a friend and we were going
to Queens. I said to take the LIE so that could take the HOV lane. To
my suprise, there was no entrace. Queens residents would be suffering
from a lane that they wouldn't use. But in keeping with balance, it
still isn't fair to move near an expressway and then demand that it not
be widened (please note what I said about me living near a parkway).
Also, it is the state's (or whoever owns the road) responsibility to
opt for context sensitive alternatives when upgraded is really needed.
Thats why NY 347 is not being upgraded to a freeway.

Post by Mike Tantillo
Additonally, the nature of widening the highway in the area "changes
the game". The folks in Massachusetts that the OP posted about are
complaining about an existing freeway that is not being changed in any
way. They should have known better. People in Queens next to teh LIE
may have thought that the current arrangement is acceptable, but that
any bigger would diminish their property values. And its sort of a
slippery slope....maybe now your only adding one lane, but if you add
another lane a few years later, and another a decade after that, its
the equivalent of one mega improvement done in small steps. So these
people have a right to complain and demand mitigation measures.
I think the thing that really makes Queens residents in this case have
a right to complain is looking at where the growth is occurring. The
reason why the road in Queens needs to be widening isnt because the
residents of Queens voted to approve a ton of new development....its
because residents of eastern Suffolk County approved a ton of
development. But way out east of NY 112, the LIE has a lot of spare
capacity, so ironically, the road doesn't need to be widened where the
development is occurring, but someplace 40 miles west of there. If I
lived in that part of Queens, I'd be angry too, that someone else's
irresponsible decisions were the cause of a road widening im my
neighborhood.

You know, that is a good point, Mike.

Post by Mike Tantillo
So since we have to be sensitive to everyone's needs, I think the LIE
in eastern Queens can be viewed as a success, a good compromise, or in
planner terms, a "context sensitive solution". The road was widened to
accomodate the traffic from the HOV lane in Nassau County. The lane
can be used by people travelling to/from eastern Queens, so eastern
Queens residents benefit from it. They didn't really have to widen the
footprint of the roadway very much and therefore didn't harm the
neighborhood the way the original plan would have. But regardless,
significant changes to the road were made which would likely mean more
traffic on the highway, so the area is getting its sound walls. Only a
fairly small segment of the widening is completely shoulderless anyway.
Now if they had completely stopped the project, then I'd say, "damn
those NIMBY's!"

Right, do you suspect the state could go for a context sensitive
alternative to extend the HOV lanes into central or western Queens?

Post by Mike Tantillo

Post by NYC ROAD GEEK
----

Post by John S
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

[l***@gmail.com]

Here is a different way to think about it. Those people bought the land because of how it was at the time. They have no control over the federal or state planning. If there is congestion in the highway, why not ask why there is congestion before displacing these peoples homes. Here is my observation having lived infront of two highways (BQE in Brooklyn and one in the Bronx). 1) Much of the traffic is from people that live outside of the city and commute to work from 1 hour away or more (some 3 hours!). You dont need to widen the highway, just enforce a toll on out of city residents, or increase the toll. When its no longer financially lucrative to commute over 1 hour to work those people will either move INTO the city or find local work. Americans commute way too much, causing accidents, pollution and fueling out dependency on foreign war/occupations to maintain an open flow of oil. Sustainability. 2) If there is congestion, look at what is being driven. 4 passenger cars with single occupants for 99% of drivers, thats retarded. Lower or remove tolls on motorcycles, car-pooling and smaller cars. Lower the cost of trains and buses (by reinvesting the road tolls) and the economic incentive will put smaller cars in the road an more mass transit which will allow 5 times more people to more safely, cheaply and healthily commute without chopping up neighborhoods.

I am not an eco, anti car hippy.. but the reality is that to fix a problem you need to study the cause. If you build a wider highway you will just get more commuters and then you will be congested in a few years. High speed trains with multi-story parking decks and smaller cars are the answer. Japan and Europe have proven this as a good functioning system.

My 2 cents.

[i***@harvard.edu]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

It's also similar to people who buy a house on a main street and then
complain about traffic and people who buy a house on a dead-end street
and complain they are not getting plowed the minute is snows.

[morticide]

Post by i***@harvard.edu

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

It's also similar to people who buy a house on a main street and then
complain about traffic and people who buy a house on a dead-end street
and complain they are not getting plowed the minute is snows.

It's also similar to people who buy property in a rural area and
complain that they're slowed down by a tractor and/or that the air
smells like pig feces.

[k***@gmail.com]

It's also similiar to to folks who bought cheap land abutting an
interchange quadrant, and then start crying when the Highway Department
wants to make safety improvements.

Post by morticide

Post by i***@harvard.edu

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

It's also similar to people who buy a house on a main street and then
complain about traffic and people who buy a house on a dead-end street
and complain they are not getting plowed the minute is snows.

It's also similar to people who buy property in a rural area and
complain that they're slowed down by a tractor and/or that the air
smells like pig feces.

[Par K]

Post by k***@gmail.com
It's also similiar to to folks who bought cheap land abutting an
interchange quadrant, and then start crying when the Highway Department
wants to make safety improvements.

Post by morticide

Post by i***@harvard.edu

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

It's also similar to people who buy a house on a main street and then
complain about traffic and people who buy a house on a dead-end street
and complain they are not getting plowed the minute is snows.

It's also similar to people who buy property in a rural area and
complain that they're slowed down by a tractor and/or that the air
smells like pig feces.

It's also similar to people who buy a house and get
a job that requires them to communte on slow, over-
crowded roads, and then complain that the traffic
is horrible, and asking that the taxpayers widen
the road.

[Rozzie]

Post by Par K
It's also similar to people who buy a house and get
a job that requires them to communte on slow, over-
crowded roads, and then complain that the traffic
is horrible, and asking that the taxpayers widen
the road.

You have a point, although if you took that argument back in time far
enough, you would cover just about everyone, no matter where they live.
We (or our ancestors) all moved here from somewhere else, and demanded
that infrastructure follow us around.

The thing to remember is that wider and longer roads should not and
will not always be the right answer.

[David Chesler]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop.

This is similar to people who take a job or house such they have to
commute on a crowded highway, and then demand that the state widen the
highway so it won't be so congested.

Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

[E***@spamblock.panix.com]

Post by David Chesler
Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

You had guard rails? When I was young, the unpaved roads would crumble
away from us right down the cliff! And we LIKED it!

[morticide]

Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com

Post by David Chesler
Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

You had guard rails? When I was young, the unpaved roads would crumble
away from us right down the cliff! And we LIKED it!
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

You had unpaved ROADS? In my area in the day we just had muddy cow
paths and considered it good to go over 10 mph and cover 100 yards
before getting stuck. MODOT simply paved over those paths.

[Steve Kl.]

Post by morticide

Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com

Post by David Chesler
Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

You had guard rails? When I was young, the unpaved roads would crumble
away from us right down the cliff! And we LIKED it!
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

You had unpaved ROADS? In my area in the day we just had muddy cow
paths and considered it good to go over 10 mph and cover 100 yards
before getting stuck. MODOT simply paved over those paths.

You had COWS? We had to milk woodchucks for sustenance.

[morticide]

Post by Steve Kl.

Post by morticide

Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com

Post by David Chesler
Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

You had guard rails? When I was young, the unpaved roads would crumble
away from us right down the cliff! And we LIKED it!
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

You had unpaved ROADS? In my area in the day we just had muddy cow
paths and considered it good to go over 10 mph and cover 100 yards
before getting stuck. MODOT simply paved over those paths.

You had COWS? We had to milk woodchucks for sustenance.
--
-- Steve Kl.

No cows, just the cow paths. You had WOODCHUCKS? We had to milk mice.

[Steve Kl.]

Post by morticide
No cows, just the cow paths. You had WOODCHUCKS? We had to milk mice.

There's a joke there somewhere about titmice, but that's probably too
colorful for a transporation newsgroup....

:)

[Steve Kl.]

In article <eadot9$cv7$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Steve Kl. <***@panix.com> wrote:

[oops]

ACK! I meant to control-R instead of control-F. My apologies,
I'll see if I can kill that post, which might be appropriately
jokey for some newsgroups, but not this one.

[Steve Kl.]

Post by Steve Kl.
ACK! I meant to control-R instead of control-F. My apologies,
I'll see if I can kill that post, which might be appropriately
jokey for some newsgroups, but not this one.

Success. Yay trn help menu!

[toffner]

Reminds me of when the Mormon church was trying to build that huge
temple next to route 2 on the belmont/arlington border. A group of
belmont residents that abutted the property ran the church through
absolute hell over it, led by a couple who freely admitted that they
only reason they had been able to afford the house was because the
previous owners were desperate to get away from the coming temple.

[David Chesler]

Post by toffner
Reminds me of when the Mormon church was trying to build that huge
temple next to route 2 on the belmont/arlington border. A group of
belmont residents that abutted the property ran the church through
absolute hell over it, led by a couple who freely admitted that they
only reason they had been able to afford the house was because the
previous owners were desperate to get away from the coming temple.

Sometime people buy distressed personal property in the hopes of
fixing it up. If they are better at making the repairs or finding the
missing parts than the seller, they've got a bargain.

What's wrong with
(S) I don't want this, because I perceive a problem, and I don't
want to deal with the problem, nor deal with the solution, nor risk that
the solution won't solve the problem.
(P) I'll take that risk. .....
And then (P) takes the action.

Many people buy houses planning to make immediate improvements (some
as drastic as razing the house and building another.) Some of these
improvements require permits or even variances. Some of those permits
are easy to obtain, others are speculative. What's the problem?

There were good reasons not to build the Mormon temple: it's out of
scale with the neighborhood, and the top of that hill was a landmark.
Were it not for the Dover Amendment, or were they not religious, the
church would have had poor odds of succeeding. There's nothing wrong
with casting one's lot that way and joining the fight.

The state has shown a willingness to add sound barriers when abutters
request it, and this is a relatively new policy. Nobody thought about
it in the past.

My house doesn't have a sidewalk in front of it, but some thirty or
forty years ago the city took a strip of land down this side of the
street to have room to make a sidewalk. And we don't have a traffic
signal at the corner, even though we are the n'th-busiest intersection
without one, they've been talking about it for decades, and when I
bought the house we were the (m+n)th busiest unsignalled intersection --
since then they've added m signals. Does this mean I'm precluded from
asking that the sidewalk finally be installed (or if I decide I don't
want it, making an argument against it if it starts to go forward) or
expressing an opinion about the traffic light? (It's a difficult and
accident-prone intersection, but if the light is installed, traffic is
going to back up past my driveway.)

[Ed]

Post by David Chesler

Post by toffner
Reminds me of when the Mormon church was trying to build that huge
temple next to route 2 on the belmont/arlington border. A group of
belmont residents that abutted the property ran the church through
absolute hell over it, led by a couple who freely admitted that they
only reason they had been able to afford the house was because the
previous owners were desperate to get away from the coming temple.

Sometime people buy distressed personal property in the hopes of
fixing it up. If they are better at making the repairs or finding the
missing parts than the seller, they've got a bargain.
What's wrong with
(S) I don't want this, because I perceive a problem, and I don't
want to deal with the problem, nor deal with the solution, nor risk that
the solution won't solve the problem.
(P) I'll take that risk. .....
And then (P) takes the action.
Many people buy houses planning to make immediate improvements (some
as drastic as razing the house and building another.) Some of these
improvements require permits or even variances. Some of those permits
are easy to obtain, others are speculative. What's the problem?

An excellent example of that here on Cape Cod, and probably in other
waterfront commuinities, is private docks. A couple of years ago a
rule of thumb was that a private dock added about $200K to the value of
a property. Currently private docks are assessed by the town of
Banrstable at over $200K. Now it doesn't take $200K to install a dock
but it can take severl tens of thousands of dollars and severral years
to go through the permitting process with no guarantee of success.
Hence the value of a dock is far greater than the sum of the costs that
went into permitting and building it.

[John S]

Post by David Chesler

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop.

This is similar to people who take a job or house such they have to
commute on a crowded highway, and then demand that the state widen the
highway so it won't be so congested.

Not really, since widening the highway would benefit all travelers in
that area, and the homeowners wishes to have his own property improved
by the state. The highway is not new.

Post by David Chesler
Nothing must ever be improved. You want sound barriers? In my time
we were lucky to have guard rails!

The issue isn't just about improving one's property. If the new
homeowner wants a wall in his backyard, I'm sure he could have one
installed. But instead he buys a house at a price appropriate to being
adjacent to a freeway, and then is upset that his house is adjacent to a
freeway, so he wants taxpayers to build a wall for him to increase his
property value. Are we to believe that he didn't know that I-95 was
there? If he had a nice quiet backyard and then all of the sudden a
highway or a powerplant or an airport had sprung up, his claim would
make more sense.

I'm not against sound barrier walls per se, but I think that the limited
taxpayers' funds that are available should be used to ensure all the
infrastructure is in acceptable condition first, before improving
existing personal property.

[David Chesler]

Post by John S

Post by David Chesler

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop.

This is similar to people who take a job or house such they have to
commute on a crowded highway, and then demand that the state widen the
highway so it won't be so congested.

Not really, since widening the highway would benefit all travelers in
that area, and the homeowners wishes to have his own property improved
by the state. The highway is not new.

Neither is the congestion.

Post by John S
The issue isn't just about improving one's property. If the new
homeowner wants a wall in his backyard, I'm sure he could have one
installed. But instead he buys a house at a price appropriate to being
adjacent to a freeway, and then is upset that his house is adjacent to a
freeway, so he wants taxpayers to build a wall for him to increase his
property value. Are we to believe that he didn't know that I-95 was
there?

No, we're to believe that he guessed that sound barriers have been
retrofitted in other places, and may be available on request.

We've just spent 15 billion dollars so the North End will have a nicer
view. The residents there must have noticed there was a big elevated
highway running through their neighborhood.

Post by John S
If he had a nice quiet backyard and then all of the sudden a
highway or a powerplant or an airport had sprung up, his claim would
make more sense.

What's his claim?

You can't have an airport without planes or a farm without manure, but
we've learned that you can have a highway that doesn't emit noise sideways.

Actually reading the Burlington Union article, one of the homeowners
lobbying for the walls has been asking for them since 1988. Maybe it
took a newcomer to get the issue moving again.

Apparently in 1988 the state would have built a barrier if the highway
were 2 decibels louder than it was -- I don't know that cars are any
louder, but there are certainly more of them now than twenty years ago.
Wakefield and Lynnfield have had sound barriers installed, apparently
subsequent to the original highway construction.

Post by John S
I'm not against sound barrier walls per se, but I think that the limited
taxpayers' funds that are available should be used to ensure all the
infrastructure is in acceptable condition first, before improving
existing personal property.

That's not an unreasonable position (depending on the definition of
infrastructure, which apparently includes uncongested highways but not
peaceful homes), but it has very little to do with whether those
lobbying for the improvement are new residents or have been living there
since before the highway was built.

[richard]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

Been done before. Residents complain about the noise, taxpayers, of which
they are, pay for the barrier.
So in an essence, they are paying for the barrier themselves.

A few years ago I was interested in buying a house. But the city wanted the
new owenr to fork over $79,000 for the work done on the street. No work was
done on the property itself. Just the entire street. I'll bet that house
still hasn't sold.

[E***@spamblock.panix.com]

Post by richard
Been done before. Residents complain about the noise, taxpayers, of which
they are, pay for the barrier.
So in an essence, they are paying for the barrier themselves.

Naw, they are paying for about 1/1,000,000 of the cost of the barrier,
assuming that there are a million taxpayers in MA. Or if is paid from
Federal highway funds, they are paying or about 1/200,000,000.

Post by richard
A few years ago I was interested in buying a house. But the city wanted the
new owenr to fork over $79,000 for the work done on the street. No work was
done on the property itself. Just the entire street. I'll bet that house
still hasn't sold.

That is a municipal betterment. When things are done which
disproportionately improve certain lots, rather than the city as a whole,
the lot owners often have to pay thier share. It is common for sidewalks,
streetlights and sewer hookups.

[Bob S]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.

This is similar to people who build out by a quarry, asphalt plant or
concrete plant and then complain about the noise, dust, truck traffic,
etc. Never mind that the sand, gravel, blacktop and concrete for their
road, house foundation and driveway probably came from the same quarry
or plant.

Bob S

[John Lansford]

Post by John S
This is similar to people who buy cheap land at the end of a runway and
then are all surprised that airplanes are flying overhead and demand
they stop. Here we have new landowners that purchased a house near an
existing Interstate freeway, at near an existing Interstate freeway
prices, but want everyone else to pay for a wall to improve their own
property, because it is near an existing Interstate freeway.
----
" The organizers of the meeting Teresa and Kevin Keene, who have lived
with I-95 pollution since moving into their Lowell Street home last
year, organized the meeting. Fed up with the noise coming from the
highway, located about 20 feet from their property line, Teresa recently
mailed letters to her neighbors, whom she suspected were facing the same
problem. The Keenes asked them to join together in getting their elected
officials to lobby for sound barriers along the Winmere neighborhood
abutting I-95. "
http://www2.townonline.com/burlington/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=543100
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/16/raising_their_voices_for_sound_barriers/

The Feds make it clear to the states that they will not help pay for
any noise wall that shields a home built AFTER the interstate or
freeway was constructed. Here in NC the cutoff date is when the
design public hearing is held; any home built before that date (or
already under construction) is eligible for a noise wall if the study
shows the need for one. If a noise wall is built for homes
constructed after the highway is built, then the state must pay for
the entire cost.

Now, if the travel lanes are moved closer to existing homes as a
result of widening the highway, they then become eligible for a noise
wall study and possible noise wall again.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

[Rick Powell]

Post by John Lansford
The Feds make it clear to the states that they will not help pay for
any noise wall that shields a home built AFTER the interstate or
freeway was constructed. Here in NC the cutoff date is when the
design public hearing is held; any home built before that date (or
already under construction) is eligible for a noise wall if the study
shows the need for one. If a noise wall is built for homes
constructed after the highway is built, then the state must pay for
the entire cost.
Now, if the travel lanes are moved closer to existing homes as a
result of widening the highway, they then become eligible for a noise
wall study and possible noise wall again.

That's the same way it is administered in IL, and probably everywhere
else where FHWA funds are involved.

RP

[George Grapman]

Reminds me of people here in San Francisco who purchased on Lombard
St. (the alleged crookedest street) and then wanted it closed the
through traffic because the tourist traffic was a nuisance.
Similarly someone once complained abut the cable car noise at their
house.
By the way. Lombard is not even the crookedest street in SF. that
distinction goes to a block of Vermont St.

[Steve]

Post by George Grapman
Reminds me of people here in San Francisco who purchased on Lombard
St. (the alleged crookedest street) and then wanted it closed the
through traffic because the tourist traffic was a nuisance.
Similarly someone once complained abut the cable car noise at their
house.
By the way. Lombard is not even the crookedest street in SF. that
distinction goes to a block of Vermont St.

Why is that piece of Vermont so squiggly when the block next to it
(Kansas) is perfectly straight? The hill can't be that much worse...
Then again, it looks like Lombard was just done for the freak value (see
adjacent Chestnut St.), so maybe Vermont is the same deal.

[A***@hotmail.com]

Post by George Grapman
Reminds me of people here in San Francisco who purchased on Lombard
St. (the alleged crookedest street) and then wanted it closed the
through traffic because the tourist traffic was a nuisance.

Not that it should matter who was there first, but how do you know that
all the people complaining moved there after tourist traffic was as bad
as it was when they complained?

-Apr

[Free Lunch]

On 30 Jul 2006 19:59:43 -0700, in misc.transport.road

Post by A***@hotmail.com

Post by George Grapman
Reminds me of people here in San Francisco who purchased on Lombard
St. (the alleged crookedest street) and then wanted it closed the
through traffic because the tourist traffic was a nuisance.

Not that it should matter who was there first, but how do you know that
all the people complaining moved there after tourist traffic was as bad
as it was when they complained?

As I recall, there have been tourists driving on Lombard since before
WWII -- I have seen quite old postcards of it, though I cannot recall
where or when. I am willing to let all of the people who owned homes
there before tourists made a nuisance of themselves complain loudly.