Back in the 1960s-70s, the plan was to re-designate NY 135 as I-287 upon the completion of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge.
I realize that back then, the standards for Interstate designation were less stringent than they are today. This made me wonder: if by some chance a bridge or tunnel linking 135 and 287 is actually built (and this idea never seems to go away, regardless of how much opposition there is against it), would 135 be re-designated as 287, or would the 135 designation remain due to today's higher Interstate designation standards?
I assume that the freeway would need to be brought up to modern standards to be considered for an Interstate designation. The days of grandfathering are gone.
I highly doubt a NY 135-to-Interstate 287 conversion would happen even if the $55 billion tunnel is built. I'd imagine the NY 135 designation would be extended northward along to the yet-to-be-built (if ever built) tunnel to terminate at the Interstate 95/Interstate 287 interchange.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 04:47:27 PM
I highly doubt a NY 135-to-Interstate 287 conversion would happen even if the $55 billion tunnel is built. I'd imagine the NY 135 designation would be extended northward along to the yet-to-be-built (if ever built) tunnel to terminate at the Interstate 95/Interstate 287 interchange.
Hm, I don't know if the tunnel being I-287 vs. NY 135 would make any difference in terms of funding, environmental requirements, etc. I'm sure it would be a corridor of national importance and therefore still subject to Federal scrutiny at some level - unless it being a fully toll-supported facility would waive that requirement. I'm just familiar enough with that process to be dangerously wrong. I could see I-287 ending at I-495 - wouldn't really have to do much of anything for that.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 04:47:27 PM
I highly doubt a NY 135-to-Interstate 287 conversion would happen even if the $55 billion tunnel is built.
Who came up with that figure? Sounds like someone overestimated the cost by an order of magnitude so that they could "prove" that it is unaffordable.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 04:47:27 PM
I highly doubt a NY 135-to-Interstate 287 conversion would happen even if the $55 billion tunnel is built.
Who came up with that figure? Sounds like someone overestimated the cost by an order of magnitude so that they could "prove" that it is unaffordable.
That may be the most realistic tunnel number ever quoted. Look at the final design cost estimates from Boston and Seattle vs. actuals.
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2018, 12:33:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 04:47:27 PM
I highly doubt a NY 135-to-Interstate 287 conversion would happen even if the $55 billion tunnel is built.
Who came up with that figure? Sounds like someone overestimated the cost by an order of magnitude so that they could "prove" that it is unaffordable.
That may be the most realistic tunnel number ever quoted. Look at the final design cost estimates from Boston and Seattle vs. actuals.
Pretty much 8 to 10 times the figure for recent similar length bay crossings in other parts of the world.
https://femern.com/en
This seems like fictional highway territory. But if you look on the map, about 1/3 or 1/4 of the RoW is already there for a surface freeway, then you just have to acquire a hundred or so (maybe less) houses. What would be needed is a causeway bridge to connect to Rye to make it happen.
One would think the big monied interests in the Hamptons would want this kind of thing.
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 01, 2018, 09:47:31 AM
This seems like fictional highway territory. But if you look on the map, about 1/3 or 1/4 of the RoW is already there for a surface freeway, then you just have to acquire a hundred or so (maybe less) houses. What would be needed is a causeway bridge to connect to Rye to make it happen.
One would think the big monied interests in the Hamptons would want this kind of thing.
Long Island population is 2.9 million, using that of the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. They really do need a connection to the mainland that doesn't have to pass thru New York City's already extremely busy highway system.
Probably two crossings should be planned in the long term, the first being a 6-lane NY-NY connection from I-287 southward being given priority, and then a 4-lane mid-Sound crossing to Bridgeport some time in the future, maybe distant future.
Question: Does Connecticut have enough official interest to participate in a mid-Sound project where they might have to provide half of the funding to build it?
The problem is I don't think 287 can end at Merrick Road like 135 can. Even if you extended it to the Wantagh State Parkway, the interstate highway designation I don't think can end at that.
Someone who's better on AASHTO rules can answer, but I think 135 going from Merrick Road to Rye is more likely.
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 01, 2018, 09:47:31 AM
This seems like fictional highway territory. But if you look on the map, about 1/3 or 1/4 of the RoW is already there for a surface freeway, then you just have to acquire a hundred or so (maybe less) houses. What would be needed is a causeway bridge to connect to Rye to make it happen.
One would think the big monied interests in the Hamptons would want this kind of thing.
Long Island population is 2.9 million, using that of the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. They really do need a connection to the mainland that doesn't have to pass thru New York City's already extremely busy highway system.
Probably two crossings should be planned in the long term, the first being a 6-lane NY-NY connection from I-287 southward being given priority, and then a 4-lane mid-Sound crossing to Bridgeport some time in the future, maybe distant future.
Question: Does Connecticut have enough official interest to participate in a mid-Sound project where they might have to provide half of the funding to build it?
Interest from CT? Hell no. See posts in the Connecticut thread about building ANYTHING in Fairfield County. Connecticut cant even afford to clean it's rest areas outside of banker's hours, let along something of this scale. Plus, to get it to a part of the state that doesn't have the political NIMBY clout to block it, you'd have to head east almost as far as New London.
I mean, I'd count on a tunnel costing more than $20 billion. New TZ is $4 billion. Big Dig cost $7.5 billion in today's dollars. A link from NY 25 to the New England Thruway is 16+ miles, much of that being underwater. This would be a 6+ lane tunnel. A new 2-lane, 1-mile tunnel at the CBBT is costing over $750 million and that requires no land acquisition.
As far as NY 135, that's built to Interstate standards, as an I-287 conversion was indeed in the plans when the thing was built. I don't see the designation extending south of the LIE, though they may try to extend it to Sunrise Highway. Either way, they'd have to rebuild the LIE interchange to accommodate the heavy SB-EB movement.
Quote from: cl94 on March 01, 2018, 06:33:40 PM
I mean, I'd count on a tunnel costing more than $20 billion. New TZ is $4 billion. Big Dig cost $7.5 billion in today's dollars. A link from NY 25 to the New England Thruway is 16+ miles, much of that being underwater. This would be a 6+ lane tunnel. A new 2-lane, 1-mile tunnel at the CBBT is costing over $750 million and that requires no land acquisition.
As far as NY 135, that's built to Interstate standards, as an I-287 conversion was indeed in the plans when the thing was built. I don't see the designation extending south of the LIE, though they may try to extend it to Sunrise Highway. Either way, they'd have to rebuild the LIE interchange to accommodate the heavy SB-EB movement.
The Big Dig cost $24.3 billion in it's old-day dollars. Probably north of $30-$35 billion in today's dollars.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 02, 2018, 09:01:12 AM
The Big Dig cost $24.3 billion in it's old-day dollars. Probably north of $30-$35 billion in today's dollars.
Cost $14.6 billion.
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2018, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 02, 2018, 09:01:12 AM
The Big Dig cost $24.3 billion in it's old-day dollars. Probably north of $30-$35 billion in today's dollars.
Cost $14.6 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
http://legacy.wbur.org/2012/07/12/7-things-that-cost-less-than-the-big-dig
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/12/29/years-later-did-big-dig-deliver/tSb8PIMS4QJUETsMpA7SpI/story.html
https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/07/10/true-cost-of-big-dig-exceeds-24-billion-with-interest-officials-determine
I count all the cost, including the $9 billion in interest.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 02, 2018, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2018, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 02, 2018, 09:01:12 AM
The Big Dig cost $24.3 billion in it's old-day dollars. Probably north of $30-$35 billion in today's dollars.
Cost $14.6 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
http://legacy.wbur.org/2012/07/12/7-things-that-cost-less-than-the-big-dig
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/12/29/years-later-did-big-dig-deliver/tSb8PIMS4QJUETsMpA7SpI/story.html
https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/07/10/true-cost-of-big-dig-exceeds-24-billion-with-interest-officials-determine
I count all the cost, including the $9 billion in interest.
Wiki --
"However, the project was completed in December 2007 at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006. The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it would not be paid off until 2038."
SMS: That supposed ultimate cost is only a very long range estimate, which includes bonds issued for the project funding.
Construction cost was $14.6 billion as finaled on the contracts. That is the relevant figure in a discussion about costs for current project proposals.
In any event, comparing an urban project like the Big Dig to the Long Island crossing is comparing apples to oranges, they are very different projects. It will take a detailed and honest engineering estimate to determine what a proposed project would cost.
Here are some websites where one can find the $55 billion price tag I quoted.
https://www.newsday.com/business/long-island-sound-bridge-tunnel-1.16008261
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2018/01/05/westchester-long-island-tunnel-would-cost-up-55-billion-study-shows/1008168001/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/09/cross-sound-tunnel-bridge-cost/
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2018, 05:15:39 PM
Here are some websites where one can find the $55 billion price tag I quoted.
https://www.newsday.com/business/long-island-sound-bridge-tunnel-1.16008261
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2018/01/05/westchester-long-island-tunnel-would-cost-up-55-billion-study-shows/1008168001/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/09/cross-sound-tunnel-bridge-cost/
I am well aware that "news" sites posted the figure. I just wonder where they pulled it from.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if such a tunnel did carry a $55 billion price tag. Cost inflation on any bridge or tunnel project in the United States is pretty damned extreme. Factor that into the decades of time it literally takes to move any major infrastructure project from concept to completion. Let's face it. The United States really really sucks at this stuff anymore. Sure the road, bridge or tunnel
might possibly be really nice or even state of the art when it is finally finished. Unfortunately these projects end up costing so much and taking so long to build that you'll literally see some of the planners who started working on the project die of old age before it gets finished. At the rate this nation is currently going we're going to completely lose our ability to build any big things at all before long.
Quote from: BeltwayPretty much 8 to 10 times the figure for recent similar length bay crossings in other parts of the world.
Again, not surprising at all. Over in China they built the Duge Beipanjiang Bridge for 1 billion Yuan, about $144 million in 2016 dollars (the year the bridge opened). For those not familiar with this cable stayed bridge it's now the world's tallest bridge, the first to have a road deck more than 500 meters above grade. Here in the United States we couldn't build such a bridge without it costing at least $2 to $3 billion.
Bridges are definitely cheaper to build than tunnels. Unfortunately there is no way in hell a bridge approach could ever be built from the I-95/I-287 interchange in Rye/Port Chester. There are big mansions all over the coastline there. Down on Long Island a little of the ROW for a NY-135 Northern extension is still unoccupied North of Jericho Turnpike. Getting farther North into Syosset there's all kinds of upper middle class and upper class homes. I don't even see the possibility of building an at-grade freeway into that area. There's sure no way in hell anyone is building a big bridge out of Oyster Bay. Once again, engineers are going to be stuck with tunneling.
If the project was actually pursued seriously the whole thing would probably end up being one really long tunnel, with a lot of the tunnel going a long way under dry land. On Long Island the tunnel would probably have to be built almost down to the current spot where NY-135 ends. The only way a bridge in the Long Island Sound could be worked into the project is if the highway came out of tunnels a mile from the shoreline. And even then the rich folks living on either coast line would probably be furious about a bridge interrupting their view.
Of course if a similar project of this kind was being built in China it would be no sweat for that government. I'm not advocating some of the practices they use for bulldozing major infrastructure projects through any place they like. On the other hand they're actually getting things done though (and done without it breaking the bank). We can't seem to find any happy medium here in the US.
What a depressing but accurate post. I'm 21 right now. Will I be 61 by the time some of these projects open? Or will they not even emerge from the drawing board?
Meanwhile, China is building bridges and freeways like it's 1957.
I kind of expect this tunnel proposal, like other tunnel proposals, to ultimately not be constructed. Expense, duration of construction period, and potential NIMBYs all being factors in this assumption.
Again, I cite the tunnel between Germany and Denmark that is about to begin construction. 16 miles long, immersed tube construction under a bay, two 2-lane highway tubes and a 2-track railroad tube, all in one reinforced concrete box structure. Cost estimate equal to $9 billion USD. Densely populated industrialized countries.
I would like to see a detailed engineering estimate of the materials and costs for a Long Island crossing, as I don't think anything of the sort has been compiled yet.
Tunnels cost a LOT more in the US than in Europe. Why, I don't know, but they do.
Quote from: vdeane on March 05, 2018, 07:15:46 PM
Tunnels cost a LOT more in the US than in Europe. Why, I don't know, but they do.
Unions
Isn't Europe more unionized than the US?
Quote from: vdeane on March 05, 2018, 07:36:19 PM
Isn't Europe more unionized than the US?
Yes, but AFAIK their unions have not managed to negotiate ludicrous work rules like some construction unions in NY have.
Some of these ludicrous work rules are codified into laws and regulations on the national level, which is part of why costs elsewhere in the country are still higher than they are internationally, just less extremely so than in NY.
Of course, this is an oversimplification. It's not just work rules. There's all sorts of other administrative red tape like Buy American requirements and overly specific construction specs that weigh costs down.
Then there's the litigation culture in the US, which in turn is owed at least in part to the American common law system. Note how the UK, also a common law nation, also has higher construction costs than are typical elsewhere in Europe. Civil law countries are able to build things a lot less expensively.
Quote from: vdeane on March 05, 2018, 07:15:46 PM
Tunnels cost a LOT more in the US than in Europe. Why, I don't know, but they do.
The U.S. hasn't yet needed to build a 16-mile-long underwater tunnel.
So how can we know what it would cost here? (civil engineers could compile a detailed and accurate estimate as I have said).
The Gotthard Base Tunnel came in at about equal to $8 billion USD in 2016, a 35-mile-long twin railroad tunnels under the Alps passing as much as 1.4 mile underground. It took about 16 years to build but the Swiss are pleased with it and how it has speeded up rail travel.
Quote from: BeltwayThe U.S. hasn't yet needed to build a 16-mile-long underwater tunnel.
So how can we know what it would cost here? (civil engineers could compile a detailed and accurate estimate as I have said).
Take a look at a couple of US tunnel projects in progress. The Alaskan Way Viaduct took 16 years of legal battles before it finally broke ground. It's just a 2 mile long tunnel with only 4 lanes. The final cost is estimated at $4.25 billion, quite a lot more than the original $2.8 billion estimate.
The 2nd Avenue Subway in Manhattan is planned to be 8.5 miles long. This project has nearly a century of developmental history. Its first 2 mile phase (now open) cost $4.45 billion. The whole thing is currently estimated to cost $17 billion, but it may be well past the year 2030 before it is completed. So who knows what the final cost might be
if it ever gets finished.
Quote from: AlpsUnions
Unions do play their part in running up project costs. But Unions are far from the only culprit driving up these costs so much. Unions are by far the most popular scapegoat though. Lots of white collar people play their part running up the tab too. Some of it can be chalked up to "good ole boy network" lining of the pockets via all sorts of procedural stunts. Any big project to build roads, rail or even things like a dam is a tremendous opportunity for all sorts of connected people to get paid.
Perhaps the most obvious problem is the whole legal-regulatory red tape process ensaring many of these projects for years (or even decades) before the first shovels start moving dirt.
And that's if the project even survives. The US has more than a few dead end highway stubs for roads and bridges that were never built. Public input, lawsuits, environmental review, political games with funding and other crap I'm not remembering can have these projects moving in circles. Detailed engineering plans hundreds of pages long can be scrapped, throwing everything back to square one by any of those issues.
I can be sympathetic to some of the NIMBY issues that accompany these projects. The highway revolts of the 1960's and 1970's had their reasons for happening. But now we're at another extreme. This nation no longer has any big goals (like putting a man on the moon). Our culture has grown very selfish, angry and divided. I'm really troubled by the extreme living cost inflation and mass scale gentrification taking place in America's biggest cities. It could lead to us having a Japanese style crash in population growth and a hell of a lot of social upheaval. Urban highways couldn't do this kind of damage.
Meanwhile the rest of the globe is not standing still. China is getting far more bang for its buck building new highways, bridges, tunnels, high speed rail lines, etc. They plan to spend $5 trillion on infrastructure projects in dozens of countries to build up a 21st Century "Silk Road." They intend to move the center of world commerce away from North America and Western Europe over to the Far East.
This nation has to get its eye on the ball when it comes to infrastructure. If we can't figure a way out of this problem we're not just going to see nations like China threatening to supersede us. We might see a bunch of our big companies move their headquarters from the US to places overseas. World history has seen many empires come and go. Most erode from within.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 05, 2018, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: BeltwayThe U.S. hasn't yet needed to build a 16-mile-long underwater tunnel.
So how can we know what it would cost here? (civil engineers could compile a detailed and accurate estimate as I have said).
Take a look at a couple of US tunnel projects in progress. The Alaskan Way Viaduct took 16 years of legal battles before it finally broke ground. It's just a 2 mile long tunnel with only 4 lanes. The final cost is estimated at $4.25 billion, quite a lot more than the original $2.8 billion estimate.
$1.7 billion is the cost of the tunnel itself. The entire project with associated boulevard and freeway improvements is $2.9 billion.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 05, 2018, 10:23:12 PM
The 2nd Avenue Subway in Manhattan is planned to be 8.5 miles long. This project has nearly a century of developmental history. Its first 2 mile phase (now open) cost $4.45 billion. The whole thing is currently estimated to cost $17 billion, but it may be well past the year 2030 before it is completed. So who knows what the final cost might be if it ever gets finished.
Neither of these projects can be compared to an open waters tunnel. Both are highly complex tunnels in highly challenging urban areas with complex connections to other roads (AWV) and subway lines (2nd). A subway line includes stations which are each very complex.
The Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link which I cited earlier is a much better comparison, with a very long run of similar tunnel construction.
I always find the blaming of unions pretty darned silly, for management has to sign off the contract. Management agreed to the union's demands; it is their fault for not holding the unions to responsibility, if indeed the unions are raising costs inappropriately. After all, management are the ones hiring the labor and not the other way around! No reason for them to agree to an unaffordable price.
Give them the Hostess treatment -- don't do the project at all if it is too expensive.
I also think the bashing of unions by everyday joes (i.e., non-management employees in any sector) is stupefying. The American worker has been worse off since business management won the war on unions, not better. I know nonunionized white-collar workers that would kill for the benefits my unionized factory worker grandfather had.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:38:32 AM
I always find the blaming of unions pretty darned silly, for management has to sign off the contract. Management agreed to the union's demands; it is their fault for not holding the unions to responsibility, if indeed the unions are raising costs inappropriately.
Give them the Hostess treatment -- don't do the project at all if it is too expensive.
I also think the bashing of unions by everyday joes (i.e., non-management employees in any sector) is stupefying. The American worker has been worse off since business management won the war on unions, not better. I know nonunionized white-collar workers that would kill for the benefits my unionized factory worker grandfather had.
I have no real issue with private sector unions. Their national share of private sector jobs is only about 7% currently, and continues to edge downward. I don't believe that workers should be forced to join a union in order to qualify for a job. Engineering and construction contractors and subcontractors who build these transportation projects are private sector employees. I don't think that unionization can be blamed for the high costs of projects today.
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:38:32 AM
I always find the blaming of unions pretty darned silly, for management has to sign off the contract. Management agreed to the union's demands; it is their fault for not holding the unions to responsibility, if indeed the unions are raising costs inappropriately.
Give them the Hostess treatment -- don't do the project at all if it is too expensive.
I also think the bashing of unions by everyday joes (i.e., non-management employees in any sector) is stupefying. The American worker has been worse off since business management won the war on unions, not better. I know nonunionized white-collar workers that would kill for the benefits my unionized factory worker grandfather had.
I have no real issue with private sector unions. Their national share of private sector jobs is only about 7% currently, and continues to edge downward. I don't believe that workers should be forced to join a union in order to qualify for a job. Engineering and construction contractors and subcontractors who build these transportation projects are private sector employees. I don't think that unionization can be blamed for the high costs of projects today.
Even if it's not required, you should always be
able to be in a union. Stop & Shop (a grocery store, for those not in this area) has a union, and one of its most useful rules is that you can't be scheduled for fewer than 15 hours per week except by choice (e.g. too busy for other reasons) or extreme circumstances like snow or power outages. Many other retail businesses like Walmart don't even allow unions.
Note: Stop & Shop's main competitor in this area, Market Basket, is unique in that it doesn't try to make as much profit as possible; working conditions are good even without a union, and there was even a strike when management, under new ownership, tried to change it so that it was profit-motivated.
No formal union, I suppose, but they were definitely organized at Mahket Basket.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
Plus the union is required to represent even non-union employees for grievances and disciplinary hearings. There's really no workplace difference between union and non-union, other than people paying dues and people who pay a fee (in agency shop states) or freeload (in right to work states). That's why union membership plummets when states go "right to work". Why would someone pay dues when they can get all the benefits they care about for free? The only reason would be, because if everyone did that, then the union would die, but most people don't think that way. The subsidized summer picnic and holiday party tickets are less than the dues costs (naturally), so nobody would keep paying just for that, and I'm not sure how many people actually use the member benefits program discounts.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
It doesn't benefit the persons who don't want to join a union, because they won't be working there if they have a closed shop.
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
It doesn't benefit the persons who don't want to join a union, because they won't be working there if they have a closed shop.
Right. That's the point: You want the better benefits we negotiate for everyone? Join up.
Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2018, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
Plus the union is required to represent even non-union employees for grievances and disciplinary hearings. There's really no workplace difference between union and non-union, other than people paying dues and people who pay a fee (in agency shop states) or freeload (in right to work states). That's why union membership plummets when states go "right to work". Why would someone pay dues when they can get all the benefits they care about for free? The only reason would be, because if everyone did that, then the union would die, but most people don't think that way. The subsidized summer picnic and holiday party tickets are less than the dues costs (naturally), so nobody would keep paying just for that, and I'm not sure how many people actually use the member benefits program discounts.
You forgot to say that in Right to Work states, they have lower salaries and benefits due to the lack of unions. But, hey, they bought into the myth that profits trickle down to employees, so they made their bed.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
It doesn't benefit the persons who don't want to join a union, because they won't be working there if they have a closed shop.
Right. That's the point: You want the better benefits we negotiate for everyone? Join up.
Many people don't want the union period.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 05:29:48 PM
You forgot to say that in Right to Work states, they have lower salaries and benefits due to the lack of unions. But, hey, they bought into the myth that profits trickle down to employees, so they made their bed.
Logical fallacy: uniformly declarative statement.
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
It doesn't benefit the persons who don't want to join a union, because they won't be working there if they have a closed shop.
Right. That's the point: You want the better benefits we negotiate for everyone? Join up.
Many people don't want the union period.
Then they can work for less, which they do.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 05:36:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 10:58:02 AM
The whole reason behind the closed shop was that all employees benefit from the negotiated benefits and salaries that the union was able to get from the contract. Therefore, since you benefitted from the union's actions that were funded through dues, mandatory membership was actually understandable.
It doesn't benefit the persons who don't want to join a union, because they won't be working there if they have a closed shop.
Right. That's the point: You want the better benefits we negotiate for everyone? Join up.
Many people don't want the union period.
Then they can work for less, which they do.
Logical fallacy: uniformly declarative statement.
Technically closed shop has been illegal for decades nationwide. What we have here in NY (and other states that aren't right to work) is "agency shop", where people don't have to join the union but do have to pay an "agency fee" to the union covering the expenses associated with representing them (for PEF-represented state employees, the agency fee and dues are exactly the same, and both are taken by direct paycheck deduction, so there's no reason right now not to join unless you're making a political statement by not joining).
Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2018, 07:07:15 PM
Technically closed shop has been illegal for decades nationwide. What we have here in NY (and other states that aren't right to work) is "agency shop", where people don't have to join the union but do have to pay an "agency fee" to the union covering the expenses associated with representing them (for PEF-represented state employees, the agency fee and dues are exactly the same, and both are taken by direct paycheck deduction, so there's no reason right now not to join unless you're making a political statement by not joining).
How do you know what all the "other states that aren't right to work" do in this regard? When I worked at PennDOT in the 1970s, no union fees (AFSCME) were extracted from non-union members. Public sector unions is one of the reasons why I got a job with VDH&T and left PA, as collective bargaining units for state and local public employees are prohibited by law in Virginia. Never regretted the decision.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title40.1/chapter4/section40.1-57.2/
ยง 40.1-57.2. Prohibition against collective bargaining.
No state, county, municipal, or like governmental officer, agent or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to collectively bargain or enter into any collective bargaining contract with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service.
...
Wildcat strikes are a termination level offense for state employees.
Heh. Couldn't get a promotion in PA?
Enough off-topic (and political) discussion of unions.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 09:22:50 PM
Heh. Couldn't get a promotion in PA?
Got 2 promotions and was a member of the you-know-what. Main reason was all the problems PennDOT was having with funding and road conditions, and I wanted to be somewhere where there was lots of interesting highways and highway projects. My parents lived in Alexandria so Virginia was a logical place to consider, and in the mid-1970s the really prominent construction projects were the Capital Beltway widening, the Shirley Highway reconstruction in Arlington, the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike widening, the parallel HRBT, the RMA expressway system, I-195, and the I-77 tunnels and Fancy Gap. Soon-coming prominent projects were I-664, I-264 parallel Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge, I-95 widening Ashland-Triangle, I-66 inside the Beltway, I-295 northern loop, and the 28 miles of I-95 new construction in Southside where my new job was as a construction inspector. Very interesting place for someone interested in highways.
The Philadelphia area where I was located did finally get major missing links finished on I-95, I-476 and I-676, and 18 miles of the Turnpike widened, and the Schuylkill Expressway completely rehabbed, which provided a massive improvements to the regional highway system, but that was in the period 1988-1992, long after I left, and in the mid-1970s, other than finishing the last 4 miles of I-95, nobody really had a clue as to whether the others would ever get built, and even that section of I-95 wasn't yet under construction and there were some questions about whether that would be completed, due to trying to devise a design to cross a sludge basin in the NEPA era.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 01, 2018, 05:06:26 PM
The problem is I don't think 287 can end at Merrick Road like 135 can. Even if you extended it to the Wantagh State Parkway, the interstate highway designation I don't think can end at that.
Someone who's better on AASHTO rules can answer, but I think 135 going from Merrick Road to Rye is more likely.
'NY 287'?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 11:35:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 09:22:50 PM
Heh. Couldn't get a promotion in PA?
Got 2 promotions and was a member of the you-know-what. Main reason was all the problems PennDOT was having with funding and road conditions, and I wanted to be somewhere where there was lots of interesting highways and highway projects. My parents lived in Alexandria so Virginia was a logical place to consider, and in the mid-1970s the really prominent construction projects were the Capital Beltway widening, the Shirley Highway reconstruction in Arlington, the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike widening, the parallel HRBT, the RMA expressway system, I-195, and the I-77 tunnels and Fancy Gap. Soon-coming prominent projects were I-664, I-264 parallel Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge, I-95 widening Ashland-Triangle, I-66 inside the Beltway, I-295 northern loop, and the 28 miles of I-95 new construction in Southside where my new job was as a construction inspector. Very interesting place for someone interested in highways.
The Philadelphia area where I was located did finally get major missing links finished on I-95, I-476 and I-676, and 18 miles of the Turnpike widened, and the Schuylkill Expressway completely rehabbed, which provided a massive improvements to the regional highway system, but that was in the period 1988-1992, long after I left, and in the mid-1970s, other than finishing the last 4 miles of I-95, nobody really had a clue as to whether the others would ever get built, and even that section of I-95 wasn't yet under construction and there were some questions about whether that would be completed, due to trying to devise a design to cross a sludge basin in the NEPA era.
Were you in a pension system in PA? How did that transfer over to VA, if at all?
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2018, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 11:35:06 PM
[... snipped ...]
Were you in a pension system in PA? How did that transfer over to VA, if at all?
They have a civil service system that is modeled after the federal system. All state civil service employees were enrolled in the retirement system, the same SERS that they have today, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System.
I didn't check about how to transfer it, as I wanted the money cash-out, I was young (24) and that is what I wanted to do. I bought a 3-year-old Chevy Nova with it a year later, as the former car was wearing out.
The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) has a provision to purchase former government (federal, state or local) service time up to 48 months, and in the late 2000s I did that, it was the same pre-tax 5% monthly deduction rate that is used for the pension itself, every month for the 35 months. Great investment!
Getting back to the original subject, does anyone think the proposed tunnel will ever be constructed? I have my doubts, and even if it is, I believe it is far more likely that the NY 135 designation would be extended than the Interstate 287 designation being extended along the length of the tunnel. I think the 287 designation along NY 135 ship sailed when the bridge and the rest of the surface expressway was canceled in 1973.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 07, 2018, 04:21:52 PM
Getting back to the original subject, does anyone think the proposed tunnel will ever be constructed? I have my doubts, and even if it is, I believe it is far more likely that the NY 135 designation would be extended then the Interstate 287 designation being extended along the length of the tunnel. I think the 287 designation along NY 135 ship sailed when the bridge and the rest of the surface expressway was canceled in 1973.
Sounds like the crossing itself is feasible, but that the northern and southern land approaches would encounter serious local opposition no matter where they were routed.
Quote from: Beltway on March 07, 2018, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2018, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2018, 11:35:06 PM
[... snipped ...]
Were you in a pension system in PA? How did that transfer over to VA, if at all?
They have a civil service system that is modeled after the federal system. All state civil service employees were enrolled in the retirement system, the same SERS that they have today, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System.
I didn't check about how to transfer it, as I wanted the money cash-out, I was young (24) and that is what I wanted to do. I bought a 3-year-old Chevy Nova with it a year later, as the former car was wearing out.
The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) has a provision to purchase former government (federal, state or local) service time up to 48 months, and in the late 2000s I did that, it was the same pre-tax 5% monthly deduction rate that is used for the pension itself, every month for the 35 months. Great investment!
Ah, okay. At one point, I was considered for a position at Minnesota DOT and the years of service was the issue. Sort of feel shackled sometimes. It is a trade-off: Retirement secured, but interstate mobility is trickier.
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2018, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 07, 2018, 03:48:56 PM
The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) has a provision to purchase former government (federal, state or local) service time up to 48 months, and in the late 2000s I did that, it was the same pre-tax 5% monthly deduction rate that is used for the pension itself, every month for the 35 months. Great investment!
Ah, okay. At one point, I was considered for a position at Minnesota DOT and the years of service was the issue. Sort of feel shackled sometimes. It is a trade-off: Retirement secured, but interstate mobility is trickier.
That varies from employer to employer as to whether you can "buy into" their retirement system, and what the rules are. If someone has reached the full pension point (50/30 in the case of VRS), then they could leave that money there and then draw the pension from that sometime in the future such as at age 62 when they could draw social security also; and treat their new employment as a separate entity with regards to retirement funding.
With VRS the multiplier factor continues to add up year by year, so someone who stays there say 40 or 45 years will see a much bigger benefit. Quite a few people do, we have had some go over 50 years.
Most defined benefit retirement systems work that way.