Letter: Lake Tahoe faces constant gridlock
To the community,
“Gridlock.” “Don’t leave your home.” “Stay off the roads.” Do any of these terms sound familiar to you?
As we observed this summer, with an improving economy comes the return of more traffic on our roadways. Yes, we want visitors to come enjoy Lake Tahoe and help support our local economy. But at the same time there is a risk of “Loving Tahoe to death.” More vehicles, pollution, crowding, and noise impact our environment, quality of life, and visitor experience. Proper planning is needed to ensure we don’t exceed what Tahoe can handle.
But are we already there? Several approved but not-yet-built projects will draw thousands more vehicles to the basin’s already congested roadways (i.e. Homewood Mountain Resort and Boulder Bay). At the same time, major population increases in California and Nevada will mean more people (think: millions more) living within just a few hours’ drive to Lake Tahoe. Extreme increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) seem unavoidable. Unfortunately, TRPA, Placer County, and corporate developers continue to push for even more large developments in the region.
The pressure for significant growth in the Tahoe region threatens not only the health of Lake Tahoe and surrounding mountain areas, but also our quality of life and economy. Will future generations know what was so special about Lake Tahoe, or will they only see intermittent glimpses of a murky lake through large buildings, cluttered ridgelines, and glaring nighttime lights, all surrounded by a sea of vehicles? If we want to protect what is special about the West Shore and Lake Tahoe, we can not sit idly by and let profit-driven developers call the shots. We need to get involved and demand better for our environment and community.
Sincerely,
Susan Gearhart, president Friends of the West Shore
Unfortunately the horse is out of the barn on this. Environmentalists made the matter worse.
Decades ago, a good number of people took public transportation (airlines) into Tahoe. But the League to Enslave Lake Tahoe made such a stink over it that the airlines left. Having people fly into Tahoe makes a lot more sense and leaves a smaller carbon footprint on our home than having everyone drive here.
We used to have shuttle buses going to the ski areas and the hotels. Those are a thing of the past.
While I concur with Susan’s sentiments, you cannot bar people from visiting. Perhaps it’s time to re-think our transportation problems and bring airline service back to Tahoe.
Susan Gearhart, what are your proposed solutions to the problems you’ve presented?
Bitterclinger,
Airliners might emit more smog than driving in.
I say evaluate a bridge over Emerald Bay (so there are no winter closures) so electric free buses get ridership. Windmills on the ridges where the power lines come in to Tahoe to power the buses.
Also building pollution needs to be addressed. If buildings produce more energy than they consume through photovoltaics, and passive solar energy, new building will be much easier on the environment than traditional buildings.
Gridlock, kind of funny what people here think of as gridlock is nothing like it. We are spoiled here. Our only real issue is that we have too many of our roads are always under construction, esp our main roads like 89, 50 and pioneer.
Perry,
Where is it you think Lake Tahoe is? Windmills on the ridges? Bridge over Emerald Bay?
I really don’t know where you think you are:)
Relo…. is correct about the continued construction obstruction to traffic. Sometimes one has to wonder about the timing/coordination of that.
Commercial airline service has been repeatedly determined to not be economically feasible here. There are several assessments by the City. It’s about economics and the proximity of the Reno/Tahoe airport. It’s just easier to blame the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
reloman +1
I’m tired of the constant construction of sidewalks to nowhere. Three years of construction day and night at the Y. The traffic, noise and the stench of diesel all summer long.
Most people get around the construction by SPEEDING down the side/residential streets in the area.
I have never understood why some people think sidewalks are attractive or GREEN.
The sidewalk behind Mount Blue is already overgrown with weeds.
I think the sidewalks at Ski Run, Pioneer Trail and El Dorado Beach are great.
Do I really need to lose two more summers out of my life to install sidewalks in front of Meeks Lumber??
Susan,
Quit your whining and come up with some solutions. My god you sound pathetic. It reads like I got mine but you can’t have yours. If people can’t visit Tahoe why would they want to save it or spend federal government dollars on it. As the world gets more populated more people are going to want to live, visit and play in Tahoe. We need to plan for not just the next 5 years but the next 50 and that includes development and change. Get rid of some of the old junkie motels and hotels and consolidate that into newer more efficient hotels that serve the right type of clients.
Typical friend of the west shore rant. Leave me alone and stay away or I will sue.
Relo- I guess you’ve never sat through an overnight closure of Hwy 50 or been stuck- unable to make it past stopped traffic to get home. We are beginning to forget what real winter brings with it around here. We do have gridlock at times. I am happy for you that you haven’t experienced it -YET!!
This is the intro to their recent newsletter. It would be better to have that noted by the Admin.
This summer the traffic in North Tahoe was the worst it has been in years. Probably nothing new for South Shore but at our end of the Lake it was bad and it’s probably only going to get worse.
The Friends of WS have been making recommendations and being part of the public process for almost 10 years. Look them up.
Sunriser2 – I hear you. The city has taught us to avoid it. If they knew how many people are choosing to go around rather than through the city they might get involved in the scheduling of construction. People need a break, already.
Can someone say carrying capacity!!!! At some point the roads will be overburdened and need more maintenance than can be kept up with. We have a fixed infrastructure where the highways are proposed to be widened on the South Shore with a center median to accommodate more folks when all the old motels are turned into high-rise condo-hotels or fractional timeshares plus a by-pass which will require eminent domain to be exercised. On the North Shore- Kings Beach reduced lanes to slow traffic with two roundabouts and adding sidewalks to accommodate the future pedestrians that will come with newer development of the old motels. The REALITY is we are not master planning to correct past problems we are piece-meal planning and giving every incentive possible to developers in desperation to get newer accommodations at the expense of a balance between tourism and those that live here.
Tahoe would qualify as a metropolitan region if tourists were counted with residents. This would equate to increased funding for enhanced public transit. Getting people out of automobiles would be a beautiful thing.
Robin,
I know I’m at Tahoe, that’s why these are Tahoe specific solutions to evaluate.
Tahoe supposedly never had year around residents until relatively recently, now 50,000 year arounders, with hundreds of thousands at certain times. Such a huge stress on the environment takes drastic measures to minimize impacts.
I’ve been at many more that one summit around Lake Tahoe. One thing they all have had in common is intense wind.
The Emerald Bay Bridge is only to keep state road 89 open during snowstorms. In theory if 89 never closes from avalanches, then maybe fareless electrified public transit may be the best option to reduce smog. Supposedly smog is around half the pollution in Lake Tahoe’s water.
The title says a lot: “Tahoe faces constant gridlock”. . .we are spoiled, as some who write these things have apparently not tried the route from the Carquinez Bridge to the faulty “new” Bay Bridge in a while – a sea of redlights from 5:30 a.m. throughout the day, into the night. . .not here at all.
The underlying problem here is “standards”. . .agencies work with ‘good-enough for government’, so as not to alienate anyone who can spend money here (which most residents can not do) – then call that “economic development”. . .
Contemporary economic development realizes that extra cost brings extra value, especially in a place which has let every Tom, Dick, & Harry build whatever they want, in the name of “economics”. . .
The only caveat to consider is whether it’s worth building or not, particularly if it causes more damage than it solves. . .
Here comes another STUPID question: If the Tahoe Basin has max # of people and some real event occurs, fire, earthquake, tidal wave….
HOW DO YOU INTEND TO GET THEM OUT OF HERE?
Every Tom, Dick and Harry has been allowed to build whatever they want NOT in the name of economics…but in the name of blatant outright CORRUPTION.
Robin,
I used to be a federal wildland fire fighter. Properly taken care of, there will be no mass evacuation. Takes a very focused and concerted effort to slow down and eventually stop a fire with minimum damage. Angora was a 101 what not to do case study.
Gary,
Just because some other place is dysfunctional, doesn’t mean we are ok if we are less dysfunctional.
Perry,
I have firefighters in my family. A couple of them came from Fallon and opened the first fire station here at Zephyr Cove…met my first bear there:)
I hope for the best and prepare for the worst ALWAYS
Can you say “shelter in place” for the North Shore. Depending on your personal location and location of the fire you may be asked to shelter in place instead of causing “gridlock”.
Paying in-lieu fees is NOT addressing the damage done. How much money has to be in the coffer before a parking lot gets built is a good example.
Susan Gearhart you are absolutely correct- the explosion of proposed development is absurd and will cause significant stress on our infrastructure and way of life here at the lake. You can be assured that no one cares about locals quality of living.
What has developed is a strategically designed group of “sustainability collaboratives” comprised of our environmental agencies and corporate developers with one thing in mind – Money ! The Agencies (TRPA, Tahoe Conservancy etc) invited these big developers knowing their agency administrations futures depend on “purpose and fees” derived from large scale development.
The State of California is actually paying these sustainability collaboratives “Grant Funding” to carry out their self serving development and to literally manipulate our area planning to suit their needs. It is as corrupt as it gets – but these collaboratives and Agencies are represented and protected by our own Calif. State Department of Justice.
What a nice little network club – don’t you think ?