Topic: traffic

Fix our roads before resorting to traffic enforcement cameras

By Bill Larson | April 15, 2008 |

Clarksville wants to install red-light cameras at up to 4 Clarksville intersections in what is basically a dangerous revenue generating scheme. These cameras result in more accidents not less. The damage rear end accidents cause costs more to repair. There is also an increased likelihood of injuries and even death to those who are involved in the rear-end accidents. Let’s not even talk about the fact that insurance rates will likely end up going through the roof even if you never get one of these tickets.

I hereby challenge our city to fix our broken intersections, and not to profit off a problem the city has created intentionally or otherwise!

The city insists their goal is road safety and not revenue, so I am sure they would not mind putitng their money where their mouth is. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Opinion | 2 Comments

Red Light Cameras: Increase crashes, injuries and insurance rates

By Bill Larson | March 13, 2008 |

The City of Clarksville  has started looking at resurrecting their plans to install red-light cameras in our city. They have likely been assured these cameras are safe by those who are profiting from these cameras (redflex and Knoxville) but that is not the case. If we are honest most of us would admit that Clarksville’s primary interest in them is due to the fact that they are a cash cow for cash strapped cities like ours, but one that takes money straight from your bank account.

The fact is that Red-Light and Speed cameras result in the roads where they are present becoming less safe. You are more likely to be injured or killed at a intersection after these cameras are put into place than you ever were before. Read this news report, and the study which follows it, then be sure to contact your city council member and tell them in no uncertain terms that you strongly oppose their dangerous revenue generating scheme. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, News | No Comments

Development on steroids: Rethinking urban planning for a city on the grow

By Christine Anne Piesyk | January 7, 2008 |

It is with a walloping dose of dismay, a meager bit of optimism and sometimes amusement that I follow stories of the city’s intent to address planning and development issues, including signage, as Clarksville braces for the transition of Gateway Medical Center from Madison Street to the St. Bethlehem area, and push forward development issues that affect the entire city. But let’s start with signage.

Signage. No kidding. Someone wants to talk about signs? It’s about time, though it is only a starting point. When the city refers to “blighted” areas, it refers to areas not meeting a maximized tax potential. Your property is worth much less in tax revenue as your home, and so much more (to the city and developers) as a revenue-generating business-zoned cadre of condo’s, apartments, another mini strip mall or as part of the growing Austin Peay State University campus.

In recent months we’ve heard talk of redevelopment, urban blight, and all manner of things relating to zoning and design. The fact is, when I consider what constitutes blight in Clarksville, it’s not just Emerald Hill or Red River or Brandon Hills or any of a half-dozens areas that may or may not be blighted in the usual sense of the word but which trigger dollar signs in the eyes of developers. To see blight, all I have to do is drive down Fort Campbell Boulevard or Wilma Rudolph Boulevard and look out the car window. Blight. One big wall of urban blight in the guise of revenue-producing business districts. The heck with aesthetics.

Face the fact: the view is UGLY. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, Opinion | 1 Comment »