Social concerns: Whoever can yell the loudest.

"Hi. We're from the government and we're here to help you."

It's happening everywhere.

As an example, US Rt 11, the Valley Turnpike, that was the main N/S highway in the Shenandoah Valley before I-81, is getting more and more restrictive. Extensive double yellow line additions have eliminated many of the old passing zones on the 2 lane highway. And more and more reduced speed limit areas make the original 55 mph speed limit zones a mere shadow of what the road was even 10 years ago.

I'm sure Rt 11 isn't the only road suffering the same fate. As a motorcyclist who has excellent acceleration capabilities it makes for very frustrating riding behind slow traffic. I find myself ignoring the double yellow when I have adequate sight distance to pass safely. I suspect I'll soon get my first moving violation in nearly 60 years of driving.

The nanny state continues to grow.

I respect Brave Sir Robin and Hooker as contributing engineering and technical contributors to Engineering 360. I also respect their right to their opinions. However, in this case, I think their opinions are possibly knee-jerk reactions as part of their own political philosophies.

I did not mark their entries as off-topic, because then I could not point out the following:

1. These are plans that are out there for public comment. You are entitled to be a cynic about the plans, but the point is that nothing is established for now. Any citizen has a right to comment on the plans.

2. The plans do include different levels of motorized access.

3. These are plans for our wildlands. Many Americans want motorized access. Many Americans feel differently. No plan will make everyone 100% happy.

4. Should taxpayers who value wildland ethics, pay for roads to allow more visitors and tourist to visit this area and make it another Yellowstone? It was Aldo Leopold who said "I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in."

5. Should taxpayers who value comfort type recreation have to exclude visiting these areas because of either the cost of constructing roads or the consequences of constructing roads?

These are wildlands for Americans. Their use is best determined by a plan we all have contributed to. Including the local citizens.

I suggest you all read the plans and offer your own comments on line before giving knee jerk reactions to an engineering website. I totally think it is your right to comment here. But I would suggest the only benefit from doing so is a reduction in your blood pressure.

"I think their opinions are possibly knee-jerk reactions as part of their own political philosophies."

Your thinking is wrong. Not a thing knee-jerk about it at all at any time during my 73 years on this planet.

I'm motivated by the spirit of freedom. The freedom that many of my veteran brothers and sisters have died to protect. And that I and many in my family have sworn to defend, as well as proving that commitment during times of conflict.

Of course it goes without saying that with that freedom comes great responsibility. I have no respect for those who shun that responsibility for their own pleasures.

If that's a "political philosophy" then I guess I'm guilty as hell.

Hooker

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. I meant no insult other than there is a plan. I agree with freedom until it intrudes on another person's safety, interest, property, rights, etc. Then there needs to be something that safeguards their rights as well as yours.

In my mind, that could be laws, agreements, or in this case...a plan.

I disagree with the wording you use--such phrases as "All of our elected leaders are only..." That may appear to be true today, with the polarization of USA politics being an example. I would suggest "Our elected leaders appear to only...", leaving room for differences of view without being painted in a specific color. After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, president Bush declared a limited view: "If you are not with me you are against me". This view was very widely adopted and gave very little space for other thoughts and views. We just celebrated the accomplishments and life of a US Senator, Bob Dole, who at one time was pretty strongly of a single view but became well-known for working for compromises that helped most people.

Regarding the roads mentioned, I am reminded of the status of California Hwy 1, that hugs the west coast. For decades the State has intentionally refused to widen this 2-lane road, because of the desire to preserve the scenery by allowing the slower and frequently congested road conditions to limit overall traffic. Some would like it to be a 4-lane thoroughfare, but I, for one, agree with these limits.

What we have been able to do in the past has had unexpected effects on the surrounding environment. Our worldwide population has grown exponentially, so results of our actions 20-40 years ago have become more pronounced. Effects that were within the capability of the ecosystem then are now understood to have lasting consequences and sometimes unexpected effects (some beneficial, but many others appear to be not so). Perhaps the old Hippocratic oath phrase is worth remembering: "First, do no harm." The road access limits discussed herein would appear to do harm to some, but deserve more careful evaluation and discussion than statements in the absolute.

--JMM

You're right. You're never going to make everyone happy.

However . . .

All you have to do is look at the last 40 years to the ever shrinking opportunities for those who enjoy motorized recreation. I'm not suggesting we set up a motocross track in Yosemite Valley. I get that. Really, I do.

But the enviroterrorists stated goal is to shut down motorized access to our wildlands 100%. So if you are a person of limited physical abilities and unable to spend a month hiking and camping the backcountry to reach a spot, you're outta luck. Those folks have managed to "yell the loudest".

I advocate for a healthy balance in which neither "side" is going to be happy. Nothing is without some impact. Take only pictures, but leave only footprints isn't even politically correct anymore. They don't want you to even leave a footprint, i.e a trail.

There is extreme selfishness on both ends of the spectrum on this issue.

My how times change. 30 years ago it was a two way road. Fun little trip up from Telluride. I guess too many people forgot which vehicle has the right-of-way on a mountain trail.

Unless it has changed drastically, there is no way to put road lines on the rocks or a way to to do it. Some of it is only wide enough for one truck anyway. It was to go up and look at the views, the aqueduct, the little cabin. Not really practical as a true road. Probably takes the same (or less) amount of time to go around on the paved road.

Something about journey, destination, blah-blah-blah.

I would have to disagree with the premise that this is the most dangerous road in the U.S. I would say that Highway 285 between Pecos, TX and Orla, TX is the most dangerous.

Highway 285 is a 2-lane road, speed limit 75 MPH, and heavily traveled by oilfield trucks. Construction work hasn't helped much, either. The fatal accident rate was so bad that the Texas Department of Public Safety decided to patrol this 32 mile corridor with 28 patrol cars--roughly one officer every mile--to ensure that all drivers played nice. On the 6th day of the increased patrol, you guessed it, another fatal head-on accident...