AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: Lawmakers in California approved a bill that could raise Bay Area bridge tolls  (Read 9853 times)

AlexandriaVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1323
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: December 22, 2022, 09:46:38 AM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM


People balance many things in their decision where to live or work.  If you take a job that's far from home, then you need to consider the cost of transportation; for driving, that includes gasoline consumption, wear and tear on the vehicle, tolls, parking fees; for public transportation, it includes transit fares, possibly parking fees.  If the job is far enough from home that it's not worth the cost of transportation, then the solution is to move closer to work or look for a different job–not complain that it costs too much to get to work.  No reasonable person who takes a job downtown but buys a house out in the suburbs has any expectation that his or her commute shouldn't cost any more than if the two were closer together.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

Post Merge: December 08, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
Not just any project btw. Very few projects that are extremely expensive and high priority.


Mod Note: Merged posts & removed identical quoting from second post. –Roadfro
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 10:25:16 AM by roadfro »
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14811
  • Age: 49
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:52:41 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

And who is going to be the one to say if they are being "irresponsible in regards to the environment" or not?  Who is going to say what "obvious" precautions "need to be taken"?  And, whoever gets to make those calls, on what basis do they make their determinations without studies to give them data?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: July 30, 2023, 12:18:15 AM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

True. We do focus on the environment way too much in certain cases expecially considering that idling cars in traffic are just as bad if not worse for the environment. If it was bypassed the time would be cur be at least 40% and cost by a similar margin (don't know exact figures).
Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

True. We do focus on the environment way too much in certain cases expecially considering that idling cars in traffic are just as bad if not worse for the environment. If it was bypassed the time would be cur be at least 40% and cost by a similar margin (don't know exact figures).

Apples to oranges.  Idling cars do not affect the same part of the environment as highway projects.  Idling cars do nothing but pollute the air.  Highway projects can affect flood plains, wildlife habitats, migrations patterns, etc.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you’re puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people’s homes or property acquisitions.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you’re puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people’s homes or property acquisitions.

But...  That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then.  Am I wrong?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM

Regardless of any poster's opinion -- "plowing ahead" with a new bridge just isn't going to happen.  First of all, just saying "yeah, we want it to connect 238 with 380" doesn't in any way mean that a straight line between the 101/380 and 238/880 interchange will be anywhere near where planning and vetting will eventually place the facility.  Most of the previous plans curved a connector north along the shoreline from north of SFO to Hunters' Point in SE S.F. (the longstanding CA 230 corridor) with an additional connector to I-280 just at the east end of the double-deck segment east of US 101; the bridge itself would extend east at Hunters' Point over to somewhere around Bay Farms (between Alameda and Oakland International Airport), where it would snake down the shoreline a bit to San Leandro, then turn east to access I-238.  Originally, a second branch would have sliced through Alameda toward I-980 -- but the political implications of that these days would sink such a connector in its tracks.   Any such project will, in the current environmental and political climate, require extensive vetting -- and will probably undergo multiple revisions before both route and format are finalized.  One problem with both ends of any projected crossing is that the Bay levels have been rising over the past couple of decades; the mudflats where the CA 230 corridor originally was projected to go are now several feet under water (just drive along the "Candlestick Causeway" section of US 101 to witness this phenomenon first-hand!); some sort of viaduct would be required to complete any connection from the bridge down to the SFO/I-380 area; similar conditions also effect any landing on the east side as well, but there are more options over there for route variances. 

The reality is that a project of this magnitude won't be undertaken without having to pass through several layers of the aforementioned "vetting" -- the Bay Conservation district, Caltrans' own bridge engineering department (of course);  maybe even the Coastal Commission will put in its two cents' worth, and the various county MPO's (this project would involve three of those)......the list will probably fill out with several more actors as the project progresses through its initial stages.  Then there will be the naysayers from S.F. wondering "why the fuck are you considering something that'll bring more cars into the city!"   Like any Bay Area project, it'll feature screams of both joy and anguish from collectively all sides!   If it progresses beyond the "vague talking about" phase, it'll be an intriguing -- albeit likely bumpy -- ride!       
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 611
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:29:55 PM

Regardless of any poster's opinion -- "plowing ahead" with a new bridge just isn't going to happen.  First of all, just saying "yeah, we want it to connect 238 with 380" doesn't in any way mean that a straight line between the 101/380 and 238/880 interchange will be anywhere near where planning and vetting will eventually place the facility.  Most of the previous plans curved a connector north along the shoreline from north of SFO to Hunters' Point in SE S.F. (the longstanding CA 230 corridor) with an additional connector to I-280 just at the east end of the double-deck segment east of US 101; the bridge itself would extend east at Hunters' Point over to somewhere around Bay Farms (between Alameda and Oakland International Airport), where it would snake down the shoreline a bit to San Leandro, then turn east to access I-238.  Originally, a second branch would have sliced through Alameda toward I-980 -- but the political implications of that these days would sink such a connector in its tracks.   Any such project will, in the current environmental and political climate, require extensive vetting -- and will probably undergo multiple revisions before both route and format are finalized.  One problem with both ends of any projected crossing is that the Bay levels have been rising over the past couple of decades; the mudflats where the CA 230 corridor originally was projected to go are now several feet under water (just drive along the "Candlestick Causeway" section of US 101 to witness this phenomenon first-hand!); some sort of viaduct would be required to complete any connection from the bridge down to the SFO/I-380 area; similar conditions also effect any landing on the east side as well, but there are more options over there for route variances. 

The reality is that a project of this magnitude won't be undertaken without having to pass through several layers of the aforementioned "vetting" -- the Bay Conservation district, Caltrans' own bridge engineering department (of course);  maybe even the Coastal Commission will put in its two cents' worth, and the various county MPO's (this project would involve three of those)......the list will probably fill out with several more actors as the project progresses through its initial stages.  Then there will be the naysayers from S.F. wondering "why the fuck are you considering something that'll bring more cars into the city!"   Like any Bay Area project, it'll feature screams of both joy and anguish from collectively all sides!   If it progresses beyond the "vague talking about" phase, it'll be an intriguing -- albeit likely bumpy -- ride!     
You're going to need some really large chain cutters or wire cutters to get through all that; a simple pair of kitchen scissors ain't going to do it.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you’re puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people’s homes or property acquisitions.

But...  That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then.  Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn’t plow through anyone’s home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you’re puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people’s homes or property acquisitions.

But...  That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then.  Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn’t plow through anyone’s home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.

My great-grandmother's house was torn down to make way for I-635 in KC.  Didn't have a choice.  It's call eminent domain.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM

Also, back in the quick, cheap projects era, if your property wasn't actually taken, you got nothing.  The park next door to you was replaced by a viaduct placed so drivers' headlights shone into your bedroom, you got nothing.  In rural areas, if you had a ranch that would be split by a freeway, they didn't have to offer a convenient way to cross between halves of your property or compensation for the inconvenience, and paid only for the land actually taken.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true

 :confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.

Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!

So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you’re puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people’s homes or property acquisitions.

But...  That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then.  Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn’t plow through anyone’s home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.

My great-grandmother's house was torn down to make way for I-635 in KC.  Didn't have a choice.  It's call eminent domain.
It still happens today. I agree with it to. But there is a process. Regardless, I am not proposing any changes to any of the aspects regarding property acquisition or eminent domain procedures, so I don’t know why we’re even discussing this. Words were put in my mouth there.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM


Also, back in the quick, cheap projects era, if your property wasn't actually taken, you got nothing.  The park next door to you was replaced by a viaduct placed so drivers' headlights shone into your bedroom, you got nothing.  In rural areas, if you had a ranch that would be split by a freeway, they didn't have to offer a convenient way to cross between halves of your property or compensation for the inconvenience, and paid only for the land actually taken.
That has changed today. In OKC, Uhual is in a battle with the city and its likely going to get some of its property at a pretty penny. I can’t speak on your grandmas situation(sorry that happened it sucks), but today you can fight in court and get a fair price.

There are noise and light mitigation techniques that are used on modern freeway construction as well as connectivity issues that are taken more into to consideration than in the past. Does that mean I want to see those go away just because I said in the past they didn’t have all of the environmental red tape we see today? No. The world isn’t black and white.

Anyways, my opinion is stated. As Sparker said, my opinions don’t mean squat here because it ain’t happening, especially in a place like San Francisco. I just want to see a new bridge sooner than later. They already know if it is selected and environment reports are had it’s going to be built anyways. Has there ever been a major project that was stopped or never left the ground strictly to environment reasons as a result of studies that happened?
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4174
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:55:49 PM


(because who doesn't love long nested quote strings?)

Words were put in your mouth, yes.  But, to be fair, you did say the following...

the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach.
That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?

...which, when put together, can make people think you find public input just as unnecessary as environmental impact studies.
Fair enough. I will clarify now that I do not think the eminent domain process should be changed. I don’t know enough about it anyways.

As far as public input, I have read it can take years and years just for that process alone. I think they could be brought down to months and that should still for people enough time.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 08:19:22 PM by Plutonic Panda »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.