The CBC reports:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/alaska-juneau-road-access-project-1.4665948
QuoteAlaska officials are hoping to make funds available to give the Juneau Access Project another go.
The state Legislature passed a spending bill that funds several projects throughout Southeast Alaska. Among them is the access project, which would build 80 kilometres of road to the coastline, where a ferry would take cars to Skagway or Haines, Coast Alaska News reported Tuesday.
That would connect the communities with the state's road system, making the state capital much more accessible.
... Opponents have said the project would damage the ocean and shore where the road would be built. They are also concerned that travellers also would still have to take a short ferry ride to connect to the mainland road system.
Weren't they going to make the capital more accessible by moving the capital to Anchorage?
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2018, 07:18:44 PM
Weren't they going to make the capital more accessible by moving the capital to Anchorage?
Or somewhere in the vicinity, like Willow in the Mat-Su Valley. Juneau of course jumped up and down and screamed, but the rest of the state also had mixed feelings about moving the state legislature closer to them. A lot of the state government is already headquartered in Anchorage, anyway.
The governor might veto the road plan, like he did a similar one two years ago, on the grounds that the state doesn't have the money (maybe higher oil prices have improved the fiscal outlook since then). The other, unmentioned, issue is that the Federal appeals court whose jurisdiction includes Alaska seems to really have it in for projects like this, and AFAIK the state hasn't cleared all the environmental hurdles. I'm unsure how that can be solved.
If it still requires a ferry ride, just a shorter one, it doesn't count as "connecting with the state's road system".
A fact not noted in the article is the reason why a shorter ferry ride and not simply building the road all the way to Skagway - political exploitation of Section 4(f).
Originally, the proposal from the state was to build the road all the way to Skagway, actually connecting to the North American road network. But the city of Skagway was opposed to this idea. So, they went and designated basically the entire area between where development currently ends and the city limits on the south side of the east shore as a city park specifically in order to block this proposal. Section 4(f) says you can't take parkland to build infrastructure unless there is no viable alternative, so the state was forced to scale the plan back and still keep a shorter ferry ride in order to avoid touching the "park".
Is not the political situation in Alaska that Juneau is the "capital" that just means the legislature meets there and the governor has an "official residence" there, but the actual day to day bureaucrats that run government are based in the Anchorage area, as is the judicial branch.
The Alaska Capital Building is an old federal courthouse from pre-statehood days, and looks like the older federal courthouse in most medium sized cities across the USA, and not like a traditional capital.
Would it not make more sense to just build a nice traditional capital building and governor's residence somewhere near Anchorage?
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2018, 09:52:26 AM
Is not the political situation in Alaska that Juneau is the "capital" that just means the legislature meets there and the governor has an "official residence" there, but the actual day to day bureaucrats that run government are based in the Anchorage area, as is the judicial branch.
The Alaska Capital Building is an old federal courthouse from pre-statehood days, and looks like the older federal courthouse in most medium sized cities across the USA, and not like a traditional capital.
Would it not make more sense to just build a nice traditional capital building and governor's residence somewhere near Anchorage?
Sure it would, but we'll never know that now. And if/when the new road opens, you'll probably still need a four-wheel drive vehicle to access the state capital anyway.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2018, 01:02:02 AM
Originally, the proposal from the state was to build the road all the way to Skagway, actually connecting to the North American road network. But the city of Skagway was opposed to this idea. So, they went and designated basically the entire area between where development currently ends and the city limits on the south side of the east shore as a city park specifically in order to block this proposal. Section 4(f) says you can't take parkland to build infrastructure unless there is no viable alternative, so the state was forced to scale the plan back and still keep a shorter ferry ride in order to avoid touching the "park".
A little more complicated than that. Haines, the main ferry port to get to Juneau, jumped up and down and screamed over being bypassed. Skagway would've been equally upset if a bridge were built across Lynn Canal to get to Haines (especially if it would've cut off Skagway from the ferry system), but my guess is it also wasn't thrilled at the prospect of Juneau-bound tourists just driving through Skagway without having to wait for a ferry and shop at local merchants while they waited. The shuttle ferry plan leaves Haines and Skagway on equal footing, and more importantly makes them much less likely to oppose the project (the enviros will be trouble enough).
Quote from: Henry on May 24, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
And if/when the new road opens, you'll probably still need a four-wheel drive vehicle to access the state capital anyway.
Nope. Would be just a regular two-lane road, except for the avalanche sheds. And if there's an avalanche the sheds can't handle, a 4x4 will do you no good.
The north end of existing AK 7 north of Juneau, starting at Echo Cove, is unpaved. However, at that point the last few miles of the highway is basically just for mine access for now. No reason not to pave it, if the highway were extended. And even if it were unpaved, so what? My Prius easily handled it.
If the concern is Haines and Skagway maintaining equal footing, the more robust solution would be to build a fixed connection to both.
Does anyone think this road will be built this time around? Count me as skeptical.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2018, 01:02:02 AM
If it still requires a ferry ride, just a shorter one, it doesn't count as "connecting with the state's road system".
A fact not noted in the article is the reason why a shorter ferry ride and not simply building the road all the way to Skagway - political exploitation of Section 4(f).
Originally, the proposal from the state was to build the road all the way to Skagway, actually connecting to the North American road network. But the city of Skagway was opposed to this idea. So, they went and designated basically the entire area between where development currently ends and the city limits on the south side of the east shore as a city park specifically in order to block this proposal. Section 4(f) says you can't take parkland to build infrastructure unless there is no viable alternative, so the state was forced to scale the plan back and still keep a shorter ferry ride in order to avoid touching the "park".
There really needs to be a way of saying "the 'park' was placed only to stop the project, therefore Section 4(f) does not apply". That would cut these shenanigans right out.
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
In this case, much easier said than done. Two possibilities: favoring a connection (via Yukon) to the rest of Alaska, which would mean the previously planned road north to Skagway/Haines by carving a ledge along the side of the inland waterway (and ignoring/bypassing the Skagway obstacles). The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
Juneau -- regardless of direction, if you want out by road, there's a fjord in your future :) (that pun certainly dates me!).
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2018, 02:52:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
In this case, much easier said than done. Two possibilities: favoring a connection (via Yukon) to the rest of Alaska, which would mean the previously planned road north to Skagway/Haines by carving a ledge along the side of the inland waterway (and ignoring/bypassing the Skagway obstacles). The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
Juneau -- regardless of direction, if you want out by road, there's a fjord in your future :) (that pun certainly dates me!).
Instead of "carving a ledge", how about building a viaduct?
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 06:20:27 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2018, 02:52:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
In this case, much easier said than done. Two possibilities: favoring a connection (via Yukon) to the rest of Alaska, which would mean the previously planned road north to Skagway/Haines by carving a ledge along the side of the inland waterway (and ignoring/bypassing the Skagway obstacles). The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
Juneau -- regardless of direction, if you want out by road, there's a fjord in your future :) (that pun certainly dates me!).
Instead of "carving a ledge", how about building a viaduct?
In reality, I would imagine that construction of any road through that terrain would employ both viaducts and hillside construction as deemed necessary by engineers. Since were talking about roadways 30-50 miles in length, it's likely the design and construction techniques would widely vary -- I'd expect multiple tunnels as well. In any case, it would be difficult to deploy -- but likely fun to drive (at least in times other than the dead of winter!) -- it would probably be considered among the world's most scenic highways.
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2018, 02:52:43 AM
The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
British Columbia has historically been unfriendly to proposed new highways to southeast Alaska, especially if they would connect to ports that might compete with Stewart BC's deep-water port. So getting Canadian cooperation is a maybe at best.
Then maybe it is time to move the capital, if they are not going to connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
Quote from: oscar on May 25, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2018, 02:52:43 AM
The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
British Columbia has historically been unfriendly to proposed new highways to southeast Alaska, especially if they would connect to ports that might compete with Stewart BC's deep-water port. So getting Canadian cooperation is a maybe at best.
I can't imagine any port in that part of AK is going to compete.
Quote from: oscar on May 25, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2018, 02:52:43 AM
The alternative, which would be better at connecting Juneau to the "lower 48", would be to head southeast then northeast along the Taku inlet, which would also entail carving a ledge above the waterway. Following these inlets, regardless of the obstacles required to deploy a road beside them, would be effectively the sole way to get across the rather formidable mountain range that lies along the border between the Alaskan "panhandle" and British Columbia (that is, unless Elon Musk's new boring machine comes on line immediately -- and if the schedule for the release of the Tesla Model 3 is any indication, that's not likely!).
British Columbia has historically been unfriendly to proposed new highways to southeast Alaska, especially if they would connect to ports that might compete with Stewart BC's deep-water port. So getting Canadian cooperation is a maybe at best.
Both Stewart and adjoining Prince Rupert have a major transcontinental rail line (CN) terminating at their port facilities -- which no Alaska panhandle city features. The only facilities in those towns are geared toward tourism and commercial fishing; the Canadian ports to the south have nothing to fear from enhanced access to Juneau et. al. Those containers going to Edmonton and beyond will continue to do so from B.C. ports for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: sparker on May 26, 2018, 03:48:49 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 25, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
British Columbia has historically been unfriendly to proposed new highways to southeast Alaska, especially if they would connect to ports that might compete with Stewart BC's deep-water port. So getting Canadian cooperation is a maybe at best.
Both Stewart and adjoining Prince Rupert have a major transcontinental rail line (CN) terminating at their port facilities -- which no Alaska panhandle city features. The only facilities in those towns are geared toward tourism and commercial fishing; the Canadian ports to the south have nothing to fear from enhanced access to Juneau et. al. Those containers going to Edmonton and beyond will continue to do so from B.C. ports for the foreseeable future.
The concern is not incoming container shipments, but rather outgoing shipments of logs and ore that currently go out of Stewart's port. I remember that concern was expressed about a proposed road from Wrangell connecting to the Cassiar Highway (BC 37), which was another Alaskan idea that got nowhere with BC.
Wrangell has limited port facilities, as does Juneau, though both already handle large ferry vessels and (at least for Juneau) cruise ships. But that doesn't mean more extensive facilities couldn't be developed, if a new road created demand for them.
BTW, Stewart BC appears to have no rail link to the rest of Canada (https://www.proximityissues.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BC_rail_map.pdf). The CN mainline goes straight to Prince Rupert, with a short spur south to Kitimat (best known for processing incoming bauxite ore shipments, and shipping out refined aluminum, via Douglas Channel).
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:12:39 PM
Then maybe it is time to move the capital, if they are not going to connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
So should British Columbia move its capital from Victoria (like Juneau, only ferry connections to the mainland highway system) to somewhere on the mainland?
Quote from: oscar on May 26, 2018, 04:16:51 PM
So should British Columbia move its capital from Victoria (like Juneau, only ferry connections to the mainland highway system) to somewhere on the mainland?
Yes. But that's not a roads topic.
They need to make this a priority and not let any small towns or any ports whether they stand to loose money or not block an infrastructure project that would be really beneficial to the country as a whole. What I mean by that is not that it will make much of difference, but a bunch of smaller projects like this around the country is what makes our infrastructure great.
My opinion about the capital is even if they build this road they should still build a new and shiny capital in Anchorage.
Personally, I'd like to see a 100% road (as in, no ferries at all along the route) built to Juneau, just out of principle (and because it'd be cool!) And that's regardless of whether or not Juneau remains the capital.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 31, 2018, 10:20:43 PM
Personally, I'd like to see a 100% road (as in, no ferries at all along the route) built to Juneau, just out of principle (and because it'd be cool!) And that's regardless of whether or not Juneau remains the capital.
Despite critics' hysterics, Juneau road makes sense for Alaska
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2016/10/04/despite-critics-hysterics-juneau-road-makes-sense-for-alaska/
The construction of the Lynn Canal Highway connecting Juneau, Haines and Skagway, first proposed more than 50 years ago, is back in the news. Apparently, Gov. Bill Walker is considering moving ahead on the most recent version of this project (labeled Alternative 2B). This should be good news to most Alaskans who want to see more affordable and convenient transportation options available in the Southeast region and throughout our state.See URL for rest.
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2018, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 31, 2018, 10:20:43 PM
Personally, I'd like to see a 100% road (as in, no ferries at all along the route) built to Juneau, just out of principle (and because it'd be cool!) And that's regardless of whether or not Juneau remains the capital.
Despite critics' hysterics, Juneau road makes sense for Alaska
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2016/10/04/despite-critics-hysterics-juneau-road-makes-sense-for-alaska/
The construction of the Lynn Canal Highway connecting Juneau, Haines and Skagway, first proposed more than 50 years ago, is back in the news. Apparently, Gov. Bill Walker is considering moving ahead on the most recent version of this project (labeled Alternative 2B). This should be good news to most Alaskans who want to see more affordable and convenient transportation options available in the Southeast region and throughout our state.
See URL for rest.
October 2016 and opinion. No need to click.
Quote from: Alps on June 01, 2018, 02:17:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 31, 2018, 11:23:52 PM
Despite critics' hysterics, Juneau road makes sense for Alaska
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2016/10/04/despite-critics-hysterics-juneau-road-makes-sense-for-alaska/
The construction of the Lynn Canal Highway connecting Juneau, Haines and Skagway, first proposed more than 50 years ago, is back in the news. Apparently, Gov. Bill Walker is considering moving ahead on the most recent version of this project (labeled Alternative 2B). This should be good news to most Alaskans who want to see more affordable and convenient transportation options available in the Southeast region and throughout our state.
See URL for rest.
October 2016 and opinion. No need to click.
There was a Final EIS and ROD approved by FHWA in 2006 for Alternative 2B.
"Alternative 2B would construct a 50.8-mile two-lane highway from the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cove around Berners Bay and along the eastern coast of Lynn Canal to a point north of the Katzehin River delta. A new ferry terminal at the end of the new highway would provide shuttle ferry service to Haines and Skagway using a three-vessel system."
http://dot.alaska.gov/sereg/projects/juneau_access/documents.shtml#feis
A highway between Juneau and Skagway could connect to AL-98 at Skagway and YK-2 to the Alaska Highway.
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
With 8 lanes! :clap:
Methinks the critics need a hysterectomy. Fuck women get paid.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 09:27:13 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
With 8 lanes! :clap:
Only question is would he tunnel through the mountains or have a big Lake Ponchotrain type bridge?
Quote from: NE2 on June 01, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
Methinks the critics need a hysterectomy. Fuck women get paid.
Post drunk much?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 02:02:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 09:27:13 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
With 8 lanes! :clap:
Only question is would he tunnel through the mountains or have a big Lake Ponchotrain type bridge?
Come on. It's Fritzowl. You know the answer is both, plus two more freeways you haven't thought of yet.
Quote from: Brandon on June 01, 2018, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 01, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
Methinks the critics need a hysterectomy. Fuck women get paid.
Post drunk much?
What else would someone with hysterics need?
Keep thread on topic, please.
You too buddy.
Quote from: kkt on June 01, 2018, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 02:02:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 09:27:13 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
With 8 lanes! :clap:
Only question is would he tunnel through the mountains or have a big Lake Ponchotrain type bridge?
Come on. It's Fritzowl. You know the answer is both, plus two more freeways you haven't thought of yet.
Why tunnel or bridge when you can have a highway over a glacier? It could star in a new reality series on the Weather Channel.
The ratings it would draw would put the Super Bowl and the Kardashians to shame, and then some.
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:12:39 PM
Then maybe it is time to move the capital, if they are not going to connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
The real question is achieving Fritzowl's dream of having every capital connect to the interstate system
I really never understood why the capital was in Juneau and not Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
I really never understood why the capital was in Juneau and not Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Because in the early 20th century, when the capital was moved from Sitka (which isn't even on the mainland, but the Russians made it their colonial capital largely due to convenient ship access), southeast Alaska was where the population and many of the gold mines were.
The 1900 Alaska census summary (http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/histpdfs/1900inhab.pdf), oddly enough, shows Nome as the most populous community in Alaska (gold was probably the reason for Nome's sudden appearance on the list, after it was left off in the 1890 census). Anchorage and Fairbanks weren't even on the list. Their population growth came later, with the construction of the Alaska Railroad, and increasingly strong military presence from World War II onward.
Alaska discussed moving the capital to Anchorage and it got as far as a statewide ballot proposition. In 1974, they voted to move the capital, but it didn't have any money attached to it. A vote for the money to carry out the move was put on the ballot in 1982, and it failed. It matters a lot to Juneau to remain the capital, because it would pretty much vanish without it. Most of the rest of the state doesn't care enough to spend money to move it.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2018, 12:12:10 PM
Alaska discussed moving the capital to Anchorage and it got as far as a statewide ballot proposition. In 1974, they voted to move the capital, but it didn't have any money attached to it. A vote for the money to carry out the move was put on the ballot in 1982, and it failed. It matters a lot to Juneau to remain the capital, because it would pretty much vanish without it. Most of the rest of the state doesn't care enough to spend money to move it.
There was also a lot of reluctance to increase Anchorage's political clout, even if the capital were moved to a location at the far northern edge of the Anchorage metro area like Willow.
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Michigan's is in a pretty good location though, Lansing is very close to the population center of the state.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 13, 2018, 08:08:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:12:39 PM
Then maybe it is time to move the capital, if they are not going to connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
The real question is achieving Fritzowl's dream of having every capital connect to the interstate system
I guess we'd have to do something about Jefferson City too then.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 05:01:57 PM
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Quick search found this:
It made sense to put Florida's capital in Tallahassee back when it was the center of the state's plantation economy.
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2018, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 05:01:57 PM
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Quick search found this:
It made sense to put Florida's capital in Tallahassee back when it was the center of the state's plantation economy.
Even moreso when it was halfway between the two capitals of East and West Florida, St. Augustine and Pensacola. One must remember that prior to the 1920s, there was little population on the Florida peninsula itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tallahassee,_Florida
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2018, 05:47:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2018, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 05:01:57 PM
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Quick search found this:
It made sense to put Florida's capital in Tallahassee back when it was the center of the state's plantation economy.
Even moreso when it was halfway between the two capitals of East and West Florida, St. Augustine and Pensacola. One must remember that prior to the 1920s, there was little population on the Florida peninsula itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tallahassee,_Florida
Also before air conditioning living on the Florida peninsula wasn't very pleasant. Not that the Gulf Coast was a picnic.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2018, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2018, 05:47:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2018, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 05:01:57 PM
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Quick search found this:
It made sense to put Florida's capital in Tallahassee back when it was the center of the state's plantation economy.
Even moreso when it was halfway between the two capitals of East and West Florida, St. Augustine and Pensacola. One must remember that prior to the 1920s, there was little population on the Florida peninsula itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tallahassee,_Florida
Also before air conditioning living on the Florida peninsula wasn't very pleasant. Not that the Gulf Coast was a picnic.
Ditto Arizona and southern Nevada. Prior to air conditioning, Las Vegas, NV and Phoenix, AZ were both very small places, such that the state capital of Nevada was established in much more 'livable' Carson City and Arizona did not get its star on the flag until 1912.
Mike
Carson City being Nevada's capital makes some sense. It was founded before Las Vegas and Reno and until 1950 Reno was more populated than Las Vegas. Las Vegas started booming in the 1960's and the population almost doubled in the 1990's.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 13, 2018, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2018, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2018, 05:47:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2018, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 05:01:57 PM
Some of the state capitals I have no idea how they became the state capital. Like Florida's for example, Tallahassee is in the panhandle in the northwest part of the state while a city like Orlando would make much more sense to be the state capital being more centrally located.
Quick search found this:
It made sense to put Florida's capital in Tallahassee back when it was the center of the state's plantation economy.
Even moreso when it was halfway between the two capitals of East and West Florida, St. Augustine and Pensacola. One must remember that prior to the 1920s, there was little population on the Florida peninsula itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tallahassee,_Florida
Also before air conditioning living on the Florida peninsula wasn't very pleasant. Not that the Gulf Coast was a picnic.
Ditto Arizona and southern Nevada. Prior to air conditioning, Las Vegas, NV and Phoenix, AZ were both very small places, such that the state capital of Nevada was established in much more 'livable' Carson City and Arizona did not get its star on the flag until 1912.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 13, 2018, 10:57:51 PM
Carson City being Nevada's capital makes some sense. It was founded before Las Vegas and Reno and until 1950 Reno was more populated than Las Vegas. Las Vegas started booming in the 1960's and the population almost doubled in the 1990's.
Carson City ended up getting established as the state capital due to its proximity to the Comstock Lode, the giant silver mining claim that was a motivating factor in the Nevada territory becoming a state during the Civil War. It was also a major railroad hub and really was a major population center for the state at the time.
It's also worth noting that when Nevada achieved statehood, much southern portion of the state (including the Las Vegas Valley) was still part of the Arizona Territory and was not annexed until about a year or so later. That area was not largely populated at the time.
FHWA just issued its ROD, ratifying the Governor's decision to go with the "no-build" alternative:
http://dot.alaska.gov/comm/pressbox/arch_2018/PR18-1032.shtml
Basically, the Governor would like to improve Juneau access, but thinks the avalanche and litigation risks make it hard to justify the proposed road extension and new ferry terminal in the current fiscal environment.
The press release also clarifies that one reason for all the work on updating the environmental paperwork was to avoid having to pay back Federal funds already spent on the project, rather than to set the stage for the Governor to go ahead with the project.
Whoop-de-do.
All that work on conducting an EIS/location study, FHWA issues a Record of Decision, and it is "no build". What a waste of time and resources. Never heard of "having to pay back Federal funds already spent on the project" that hasn't been built.
Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2018, 06:20:48 AM
Whoop-de-do.
All that work on conducting an EIS/location study, FHWA issues a Record of Decision, and it is "no build". What a waste of time and resources. Never heard of "having to pay back Federal funds already spent on the project" that hasn't been built.
Ten year PE rule from FHWA: If you authorized funds on a project for design, you must obtain ROW or go to construction within ten years. Otherwise, you must pay back the federal funds.
There's also some crazy 20 year rule about ROW authorizations, but at least here in NY, those have been less of an issue.
FHWA has only strictly enforced the 10 year PE rule over the past couple of years. They have also implemented a waiver process to get extensions.
See www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/150311.cfm
Quote from: kkt on June 01, 2018, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 02:02:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2018, 09:27:13 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2018, 09:54:51 PM
Do it right and build a highway that would connect Juneau to the continental highway system.
No ferry segment.
No excuses.
Fritz Owl would put a freeway in
With 8 lanes! :clap:
Only question is would he tunnel through the mountains or have a big Lake Ponchotrain type bridge?
Come on. It's Fritzowl. You know the answer is both, plus two more freeways you haven't thought of yet.
One NB on the water, one SB on the water, one NB on land, one SB on land!
Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2018, 08:12:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 20, 2018, 06:20:48 AM
All that work on conducting an EIS/location study, FHWA issues a Record of Decision, and it is "no build". What a waste of time and resources. Never heard of "having to pay back Federal funds already spent on the project" that hasn't been built.
Ten year PE rule from FHWA: If you authorized funds on a project for design, you must obtain ROW or go to construction within ten years. Otherwise, you must pay back the federal funds.
There's also some crazy 20 year rule about ROW authorizations, but at least here in NY, those have been less of an issue.
FHWA has only strictly enforced the 10 year PE rule over the past couple of years. They have also implemented a waiver process to get extensions.
Those rules would not obviate ADOT from having to pay back the PE funding for this project.
The US-29 Whoville Bypass and the Fredericksburg Outer Connector NWQ would be in those categories, but FHWA has not requested payback of PE funding from VDOT.
Right. Unless ADOT got a waiver or extension to the 10 year PE rule, they would have to pay it back.
Same goes for the VDOT projects you mentioned: Enforcement of the rule is dependent upon the FHWA division and waivers/extensions can be obtained.
Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
Right. Unless ADOT got a waiver or extension to the 10 year PE rule, they would have to pay it back.
Same goes for the VDOT projects you mentioned: Enforcement of the rule is dependent upon the FHWA division and waivers/extensions can be obtained.
Yeah, but the whole thing stinks --
"Since 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has worked with the FHWA to complete the supplemental environmental impact statement in a manner that allows the state to avoid repaying federal funds spent to date on the project. "
An SEIS could easily cost several million dollars to conduct and prepare. So they spend all this money on a project that for several decades has proposed an alternative to build a new highway to connect Juneau to the continental highway system, and in the end they conduct an SEIS to declare "no build alternative"!
I am also troubled at the many times over the last 40-some years that I have heard of major differences in practices, processes, regulation and enforcement in the various FHWA division offices (the FHWA office in a state that interfaces with that state's DOT, for those readers who don't know what a FHWA division office is).
There must be some quite tangled political pressures associated with the ADOT project.
Totally agree with you regarding differences between FHWA Divisions.
It's also possible that ADOT may have done a PEL study instead of using PE money.