The Kansas City Star & McClatchy News Bureau today published a story that Trump's team has compiled a list of 50 top infrastructure projects at a cost of at least $137.5 billion. The projects would be private and public investments. The article states that it is not known if the list is final or a draft.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article128492614.html
The list includes:
- Numerous lock & dam replacement/repair projects
- The atlantic coast pipeline (natural gas)
- What seems to be the widening all of 95 in North Carolina
- Replacement of 15 bridges along I-95 in Philadelphia
- The I-71/75 Brent Spence Bridge
- High Speed rail from Dallas to Houston
- A few projects in Detroit
- The Purple Line in Metro DC
- And more
The list of projects and some details can be found here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html
It should be noted that they intend half the funding to be acquired from the public-private partnerships.
A more detailed breakdown (listed in apparent order of priority by number):
Road projects:
2) I-71/I-75 Brent Spence Bridge
5) I-95 North Carolina "Critical Repairs" (is $1.5 billion enough to widen it as well as rebuild? I thought the cost estimates for widening were higher.)
6) I-95 Philadelphia bridges (which apparently includes the Girard Point Bridge over the Schuylkill River)
25) "Gordie Howe International Bridge" (the planned International bridge in Detroit that'll connect I-75 to ON 401)
27) Peace Bridge in Buffalo, NY
30) I-93 reconstruction/expansion in New Hampshire
31) Lake Pontchartrain Bridge (cost listed is only $125 million, so not even close for a new span)
35) I-95/I-395/FL 836 reconstruction in Miami
39) I-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado (apparently building a dynamic shoulder lane along 13 miles of eastbound I-70, but doesn't specify where)
40) I-25 improvements in Colorado
48) Arlington Memorial Bridge in D.C.
Rail/transit projects:
1) Gateway Project (Amtrak NEC under the Hudson River)
13) Texas Cental Railway (high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston)
14) Cotton Belt Line Rail Project (Dallas-Ft Worth commuter rail)
18) NYC Second Ave Subway (Phases 2 & 3)
22) D.C. Union Station expansion
23) Maryland Purple Line
24) M-1 Rail Project in Detroit
28) MBTA Green Line Extension in Boston
33) Howard St Tunnel in Baltimore
34) Red and Purple Line modernization in Chicago
36) Chicago Union Station Redevelopment
Other:
8) NextGen Air Traffic Control System
- 3 other airport projects
43) Soo Locks Reconstruction
- 8 other waterway projects
- 5 other water (not waterway-related) projects
- 2 port projects
- 7 energy projects
- 1 research project
Today saw Trump give a go-ahead for two pipeline projects that Obama and the Demos slow walked to death at great cost of time and money. What I am waiting to see is how many regulations get trimmed so we can actually get stuff built in a timely fashion, which by itself would save some dinero.
Rick
Regarding I-95 in North Carolina, there was a report today that widening said Route in South Carolina would cost about $4 billion including necessary interchange reconstruction to make room for the added lanes. I-95 in North Carolina is about ten or twelve miles shorter and has the more modern section near Fayetteville, so it might not cost quite as much, but then on the other hand it has the very problematic section in Lumberton. Can't imagine they could widen it for just $1.5 billion.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2017, 10:40:04 PM
Regarding I-95 in North Carolina, there was a report today that widening said Route in South Carolina would cost about $4 billion including necessary interchange reconstruction to make room for the added lanes. I-95 in North Carolina is about ten or twelve miles shorter and has the more modern section near Fayetteville, so it might not cost quite as much, but then on the other hand it has the very problematic section in Lumberton. Can't imagine they could widen it for just $1.5 billion.
Less swamps/bridges crossed along the route vs. South Carolina.
QuoteWhat I am waiting to see is how many regulations get trimmed so we can actually get stuff built in a timely fashion, which by itself would save some dinero.
At the expense of environmental mitigation and protection. Or, to put it more simply, we'd be burning the roof to stay warm...
QuoteLess swamps/bridges crossed along the route vs. South Carolina.
Still, given the mileage involved, I doubt a reconstruction AND widening of I-95 through North Carolina could be done for $1.5B.
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 10:47:56 PM
QuoteWhat I am waiting to see is how many regulations get trimmed so we can actually get stuff built in a timely fashion, which by itself would save some dinero.
At the expense of environmental mitigation and protection. Or, to put it more simply, we'd be burning the roof to stay warm...
And Native American sovereignty. But treaties be damned, right?
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 09:25:44 PM
25) "Gordie Howe International Bridge" (the planned International bridge in Detroit that'll connect I-75 to ON 401)
"Strap on your skates, Gordie, you're goin' in!"
Quote6) I-95 Philadelphia bridges (which apparently includes the Girard Point Bridge over the Schuylkill River)
The listing states
15 bridges along I-95 in Philly. Given that much of I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia is either under reconstruction or has just been reconstructed; I'm assuming that the stretch in question runs south of Penns Landing to the Enterprise Ave. interchange just south of the Girard Point Bridge (most of it being elevated viaducts), all of which was constructed during the mid-to-late 1970s.
I'm not sure if the Girard Point Bridge would be actually included; work on that bridge was just done (including the painting of the structural steel from DOT green to blue) a few years ago.
As a frequent user of the I-71/75 Brent Spence Bridge, I am happy to see this at the top -- this is long overdue. However, I am not looking forward to 8-10 years of construction.
At least us roadgeeks can appreciate Trump for getting at least one (or is it fifty?) priorities in order!
QuoteThe listing states 15 bridges along I-95 in Philly. Given that much of I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia is either under reconstruction or has just been reconstructed; I'm assuming that the stretch in question runs south of Penns Landing to the Enterprise Ave. interchange just south of the Girard Point Bridge (most of it being elevated viaducts), all of which was constructed during the mid-to-late 1970s.
I'm not sure if the Girard Point Bridge would be actually included; work on that bridge was just done (including the painting of the structural steel from DOT green to blue) a few years ago.
The presentation for that project includes a photo of the Girard Point Bridge, hence my speculation that it's included despite it having received the work you mentioned.
Quote from: Henry on January 25, 2017, 10:31:10 AM
At least us roadgeeks can appreciate Trump for getting at least one (or is it fifty?) priorities in order!
I like that he's doing it. The only thing I'm worried about is if we end up having to pay more tolls because of it. I'm ok with tolls on bridges like the Brent Spence or the Gordie Howe because they are expensive to maintain, but probably not on currently free interstate mainlines.
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 10:49:43 PM
And Native American sovereignty. But treaties be damned, right?
You mean the pipeline that goes near, but does not cross into, the Indian reservation? The one that they've been protesting well after the fact instead of objecting during the approval process?
No sympathy for the Standing Rock Sioux here. Time to put the nightmare of the past eight years behind us and get on with moving America forward.
Quote from: mvak36 on January 25, 2017, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 25, 2017, 10:31:10 AM
At least us roadgeeks can appreciate Trump for getting at least one (or is it fifty?) priorities in order!
I like that he's doing it. The only thing I'm worried about is if we end up having to pay more tolls because of it. I'm ok with tolls on bridges like the Brent Spence or the Gordie Howe because they are expensive to maintain, but probably not on currently free interstate mainlines.
By all accounts, private finance will feature heavily in the infrastructure program, so I think tolls can be expected.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2017, 10:40:04 PM
Regarding I-95 in North Carolina, there was a report today that widening said Route in South Carolina would cost about $4 billion including necessary interchange reconstruction to make room for the added lanes. I-95 in North Carolina is about ten or twelve miles shorter and has the more modern section near Fayetteville, so it might not cost quite as much, but then on the other hand it has the very problematic section in Lumberton. Can't imagine they could widen it for just $1.5 billion.
In 2012 - the estimate was $4 4 billion.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-95-tolling-public-hearing-wilson-nc.html?m=1
Maybe some of the ideas and scope in n the 2012 proposal were cut. Worth looking into.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:12:06 AM
You mean the pipeline that goes near, but does not cross into, the Indian reservation? The one that they've been protesting well after the fact instead of objecting during the approval process?
No sympathy for the Standing Rock Sioux here. Time to put the nightmare of the past eight years behind us and get on with moving America forward.
Don't go confusing good slogan spewing with the actual facts of the situation, now.
If you look at the signage of the nut-fringers protesting these types of projects their goal is to "leave it in the ground" which is an insane position unworty of being taken seriously.
As to the list generally, the only boondoggle on there is the Purple Line. The answer to DC's traffic and transit problems in our technological world is to move every function that can be done elsewhere, elsewhere.
Quote from: froggie on January 25, 2017, 10:50:09 AM
QuoteThe listing states 15 bridges along I-95 in Philly. Given that much of I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia is either under reconstruction or has just been reconstructed; I'm assuming that the stretch in question runs south of Penns Landing to the Enterprise Ave. interchange just south of the Girard Point Bridge (most of it being elevated viaducts), all of which was constructed during the mid-to-late 1970s.
I'm not sure if the Girard Point Bridge would be actually included; work on that bridge was just done (including the painting of the structural steel from DOT green to blue) a few years ago.
The presentation for that project includes a photo of the Girard Point Bridge, hence my speculation that it's included despite it having received the work you mentioned.
In the FY15 TIP for Philly, there's mention of rehab and maintenance work that needs to be done. It mentions painting as well, although I could only imagine it's minor paint work that needs to be done as the bridge was already extensively repainted. http://www.dvrpc.org/TIP/pafinal/2015/phil15f.pdf, page 104, which was unfunded.
Interestingly, it's omitted from the current TIP. There are some other projects regarding I-95, but I didn't see anything in regards to a project with 15 bridges. The funding requests could be for multiple projects though. http://www.dvrpc.org/TIP/pafinal/2017/phil17f.pdf, mostly pages 25 - 29.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 25, 2017, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 25, 2017, 11:03:08 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 25, 2017, 10:31:10 AM
At least us roadgeeks can appreciate Trump for getting at least one (or is it fifty?) priorities in order!
I like that he's doing it. The only thing I'm worried about is if we end up having to pay more tolls because of it. I'm ok with tolls on bridges like the Brent Spence or the Gordie Howe because they are expensive to maintain, but probably not on currently free interstate mainlines.
By all accounts, private finance will feature heavily in the infrastructure program, so I think tolls can be expected.
Alternative is more tax - mostly gas, so it can be dedicated to roads. Which would probably be about the same at the end of the day.
I don't like the way AET systems currently work where transactions cannot be settled on the spot - but that is a very separate from tolls themselves and the way those money are spent.
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 09:25:44 PM
It should be noted that they intend half the funding to be acquired from the public-private partnerships.
A more detailed breakdown (listed in apparent order of priority by number):
Road projects:
2) I-71/I-75 Brent Spence Bridge
5) I-95 North Carolina "Critical Repairs" (is $1.5 billion enough to widen it as well as rebuild? I thought the cost estimates for widening were higher.)
6) I-95 Philadelphia bridges (which apparently includes the Girard Point Bridge over the Schuylkill River)
25) "Gordie Howe International Bridge" (the planned International bridge in Detroit that'll connect I-75 to ON 401)
27) Peace Bridge in Buffalo, NY
30) I-93 reconstruction/expansion in New Hampshire
31) Lake Pontchartrain Bridge (cost listed is only $125 million, so not even close for a new span)
35) I-95/I-395/FL 836 reconstruction in Miami
39) I-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado (apparently building a dynamic shoulder lane along 13 miles of eastbound I-70, but doesn't specify where)
40) I-25 improvements in Colorado
48) Arlington Memorial Bridge in D.C.
Rail/transit projects:
1) Gateway Project (Amtrak NEC under the Hudson River)
13) Texas Cental Railway (high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston)
14) Cotton Belt Line Rail Project (Dallas-Ft Worth commuter rail)
18) NYC Second Ave Subway (Phases 2 & 3)
22) D.C. Union Station expansion
23) Maryland Purple Line
24) M-1 Rail Project in Detroit
28) MBTA Green Line Extension in Boston
33) Howard St Tunnel in Baltimore
34) Red and Purple Line modernization in Chicago
36) Chicago Union Station Redevelopment
Other:
8) NextGen Air Traffic Control System
- 3 other airport projects
43) Soo Locks Reconstruction
- 8 other waterway projects
- 5 other water (not waterway-related) projects
- 2 port projects
- 7 energy projects
- 1 research project
Surprised that a long overdue widening of I-81 in VA does not appear to have made the list.
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_00698499-4f9c-5ce5-9a06-2ca917fc6da8.html
I don't know if the numerical rankings mean anything, but the I-75 Brent Spence Bridge is #2 on the list. It definitely needs to be done, but there's a very vocal contingent in northern Kentucky that's vehemently anti-toll. I don't know if its inclusion on this list precludes the need for tolls, or if it's going to be 100 percent federally-funded instead of the traditional 80-20. But if tolls are involved, there will be a few in the region that will come out against the project.
Plus, there are a few that are still pushing hard for the outer bypass, or at least the eastern leg of it, and leaving the Brent Spence as-is
I'd imagine that Kentucky's Gov. Bevin lobbied hard for this, as I'd expect Kasich is persona non grata in the White House. Remember that when Trump held his "thank-you" rally in Cincinnati, he had Bevin introduce Pence instead of Kasich.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 25, 2017, 08:30:28 PMSurprised that a long overdue widening of I-81 in VA does not appear to have made the list.
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_00698499-4f9c-5ce5-9a06-2ca917fc6da8.html
It probably made too much sense. :pan:
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 10:49:43 PM
And Native American sovereignty. But treaties be damned, right?
You mean the pipeline that goes near, but does not cross into, the Indian reservation? The one that they've been protesting well after the fact instead of objecting during the approval process?
No sympathy for the Standing Rock Sioux here. Time to put the nightmare of the past eight years behind us and get on with moving America forward.
They were granted the land the pipeline travels through by treaty. The US government then violated that treaty and took the land for white settlers. Just because it happened a long time ago doesn't make the treaty null and void.
Quote from: LM117 on January 25, 2017, 09:29:07 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 25, 2017, 08:30:28 PMSurprised that a long overdue widening of I-81 in VA does not appear to have made the list.
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_00698499-4f9c-5ce5-9a06-2ca917fc6da8.html
It probably made too much sense. :pan:
I suspect that the road projects on this list are were either deemed perhaps not feasible for a PP3 deal or that there was some serious lobbying done to make sure these roads don't get tolled. Unfortunately that may mean a tolled I-81 in Virginia, a tolled I-95 in South Carolina, a tolled I-73 in both states, and various other tolled highways and bridges around the country that may be profitable in a PP3 deal.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 08:42:05 PM
I don't know if the numerical rankings mean anything, but the I-75 Brent Spence Bridge is #2 on the list. It definitely needs to be done, but there's a very vocal contingent in northern Kentucky that's vehemently anti-toll. I don't know if its inclusion on this list precludes the need for tolls, or if it's going to be 100 percent federally-funded instead of the traditional 80-20. But if tolls are involved, there will be a few in the region that will come out against the project.
Plus, there are a few that are still pushing hard for the outer bypass, or at least the eastern leg of it, and leaving the Brent Spence as-is
I'd imagine that Kentucky's Gov. Bevin lobbied hard for this, as I'd expect Kasich is persona non grata in the White House. Remember that when Trump held his "thank-you" rally in Cincinnati, he had Bevin introduce Pence instead of Kasich.
Trump's USDOT secretary, Elaine Chao, being married to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) might have a role, too.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 08:42:05 PM
I don't know if the numerical rankings mean anything, but the I-75 Brent Spence Bridge is #2 on the list. It definitely needs to be done, but there's a very vocal contingent in northern Kentucky that's vehemently anti-toll. I don't know if its inclusion on this list precludes the need for tolls, or if it's going to be 100 percent federally-funded instead of the traditional 80-20. But if tolls are involved, there will be a few in the region that will come out against the project.
Plus, there are a few that are still pushing hard for the outer bypass, or at least the eastern leg of it, and leaving the Brent Spence as-is
I'd imagine that Kentucky's Gov. Bevin lobbied hard for this, as I'd expect Kasich is persona non grata in the White House. Remember that when Trump held his "thank-you" rally in Cincinnati, he had Bevin introduce Pence instead of Kasich.
Glad to see this bridge on the list. When I saw the title of this thread that was the first project that came to mind to look for.
Alabama officials are shocked nothing from Alabama made the list, especially the Interstate 10 bridge to replace the George Wallace Tunnel and the widening over Mobile Bay. Some officials also want the Birmingham Northern Beltline on the list as well.
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/01/alabama_left_off_list_of_infra.html
Every booster group is going to come out of the woodwork now that their pet projects have been ignored.
The West Coast is pretty much non-existent on that list, despite having a good 15 percent of the national population and some of its most productive cities...
Quote from: Bruce on January 26, 2017, 09:17:02 PM
The West Coast is pretty much non-existent on that list, despite having a good 15 percent of the national population and some of its most productive cities...
For him to consider it, it either needs to be related to one of his own buildings or be a reward for people voting for him. The West Coast has neither.
Quote from: Bruce on January 26, 2017, 09:17:02 PM
The West Coast is pretty much non-existent on that list, despite having a good 15 percent of the national population and some of its most productive cities...
Quote from: barcncpt44 on January 26, 2017, 02:50:39 PM
Alabama officials are shocked nothing from Alabama made the list, especially the Interstate 10 bridge to replace the George Wallace Tunnel and the widening over Mobile Bay. Some officials also want the Birmingham Northern Beltline on the list as well.
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/01/alabama_left_off_list_of_infra.html
Well, 50 projects total means average is 1 per state - a bit less given several national scale projects. Some states, like CA, IL and NY, get more than one; so few others would get 0.
And I specifically like Trump covering Cuomo's ass with power line to Canada as Cuomo promises to close Indian point power plant. Would be interesting to see if Cuomo would dial down on his indignation...
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2017, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 26, 2017, 09:17:02 PM
The West Coast is pretty much non-existent on that list, despite having a good 15 percent of the national population and some of its most productive cities...
For him to consider it, it either needs to be related to one of his own buildings or be a reward for people voting for him. The West Coast has neither.
The west coast also is a no-go for 2020, so he's just writing them off at this point. If the projects don't benefit Trump's properties (read: all of the New York ones), they go to swing states.
^ Such as Ohio, which has 3 on the list, all in the top 10.
Swing states and the northeast. Solid red states left holding the bag. Sad.
Quote from: barcncpt44 on January 26, 2017, 02:50:39 PM
Alabama officials are shocked nothing from Alabama made the list, especially the Interstate 10 bridge to replace the George Wallace Tunnel and the widening over Mobile Bay. Some officials also want the Birmingham Northern Beltline on the list as well.
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/01/alabama_left_off_list_of_infra.html
The article from the start of the thread mentioned that shovel-readiness and job creation were key considerations in getting onto the list.
Quote from: Bruce on January 26, 2017, 09:17:02 PM
The West Coast is pretty much non-existent on that list, despite having a good 15 percent of the national population and some of its most productive cities...
In which states are the following projects?
8. NextGen Air Traffic Control System
15. Cadiz Water Conveyance Project
16. TransWest Express Transmission
44. Huntington Beach Desalination Plant
47. Seattle Airport Expansion
49. Energy Storage and Grid Modernization
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 26, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
Swing states and the northeast. Solid red states left holding the bag. Sad.
Illinois, a non-northeast solid blue state:
4. Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the Ohio River
34. Red and Purple Line Modernization, Chicago
36. Chicago Union Station Redevelopment
38. Illinois River Locks - Lagrange and Peoria
Texas, a solid red state:
13. Texas Central Railway
14. Cotton Belt Line Rail Project
Wisconsin, a key swing state:
(nothing specific)
Quote from: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article128801554.htmlCG/LA Infrastructure, a trade group advising clients on infrastructure issues, vouched for the authenticity of the slideshow document.
A CG/LA spokeswoman, Sarah Andrews, said: "The one you guys published yesterday, that is a very early draft of a list that we are currently putting together for them."
She said CG/LA was an "unofficial adviser" to the Trump transition team.
...
"Once the new Administration takes office, there will be a more formal process for states to submit information," the National Governors Association's letter reads. "Projects will be chosen through a more formal process as well."
So everyone just settle down, this is far from the final list. Anyone who claims to see political favoritism or disfavoritism in this early draft is just letting their paranoid imagination run wild.
An original news story said that there were 300 projects on the list...only the top 50 were leaked.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 27, 2017, 07:43:30 AM
An original news story said that there were 300 projects on the list...only the top 50 were leaked.
And question is always the same - how many projects from the list are actually to be funded?
If I had to choose one - I would say NextGen. However that is a money pit, and I am not sure it is a good idea to keep throwing cash at it
When you have a list of 50 projects, unless they do 1 per state, or numerous projects that involves 2 states (such as the Amtrak tunnel between NJ-NY), it's almost guaranteed at least a few states will be left off the list.
And there's clearly states on the list that voted for Clinton, so that excuse doesn't fly either.
Why would the US spend money in CA? After all they want to secceed so bad.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 27, 2017, 12:35:58 PM
Why would the US spend money in CA? After all they want to secceed so bad.
Just taking after North Carolina and other southern states I guess. Besides, southern states receive more in federal funding than they put in, while rich states like California are net taxpayers. So maybe CA is trying to get on that gravy train.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 27, 2017, 12:35:58 PM
Why would the US spend money in CA? After all they want to secceed so bad.
There actually isn't all that strong a secession movement. Most of these proposals, including ones that split the state up, aren't taken seriously here.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2017, 09:15:36 AM
And there's clearly states on the list that voted for Clinton, so that excuse doesn't fly either.
Almost all of the things in Clinton states benefit Trump's businesses.
All of the New York projects benefit Trump's properties in some way.
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2017, 09:15:36 AM
And there's clearly states on the list that voted for Clinton, so that excuse doesn't fly either.
Almost all of the things in Clinton states benefit Trump's businesses. All of the New York projects benefit Trump's properties in some way.
Lake Champlain power transmission was discussed long before Trump came up. And yes, this would allow closure of Indian point. SO what is Trump's interest here?
The I-70 Colorado Mountain Corridor project will probably incorporate a weekend Express Toll lane on the eastbound left shoulder between the Eisenhower Tunnel and Georgetown. That would link up with the existing Toll lane just east of
Georgetown at US-40.
Also hoping that Trumps plan will speed up the I-90 Innerbelt project thru Cleveland and the replacement of Deadan's Curve.
Quote from: kalvado on January 27, 2017, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2017, 09:15:36 AM
And there's clearly states on the list that voted for Clinton, so that excuse doesn't fly either.
Almost all of the things in Clinton states benefit Trump's businesses. All of the New York projects benefit Trump's properties in some way.
Lake Champlain power transmission was discussed long before Trump came up. And yes, this would allow closure of Indian point. SO what is Trump's interest here?
Lower energy costs for Trump's businesses because it doesn't look like Indian Point will stay open regardless.
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2017, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 27, 2017, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2017, 09:15:36 AM
And there's clearly states on the list that voted for Clinton, so that excuse doesn't fly either.
Almost all of the things in Clinton states benefit Trump's businesses. All of the New York projects benefit Trump's properties in some way.
Lake Champlain power transmission was discussed long before Trump came up. And yes, this would allow closure of Indian point. SO what is Trump's interest here?
Lower energy costs for Trump's businesses because it doesn't look like Indian Point will stay open regardless.
I am not exactly sure, does he own some Aluminum-producing factory on Manhattan?
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 10:49:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 10:47:56 PM
QuoteWhat I am waiting to see is how many regulations get trimmed so we can actually get stuff built in a timely fashion, which by itself would save some dinero.
At the expense of environmental mitigation and protection. Or, to put it more simply, we'd be burning the roof to stay warm...
And Native American sovereignty. But treaties be damned, right?
Yes, I'm all for cars (electric preferred for the future), but not at the expense of our future if it means we have to keep pumping out exhaust.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 10:49:43 PM
And Native American sovereignty. But treaties be damned, right?
You mean the pipeline that goes near, but does not cross into, the Indian reservation? The one that they've been protesting well after the fact instead of objecting during the approval process?
No sympathy for the Standing Rock Sioux here. Time to put the nightmare of the past eight years behind us and get on with moving America forward.
If you're the Sioux, the nightmare is hundreds of years longer than eight.
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 27, 2017, 12:35:58 PM
Why would the US spend money in CA? After all they want to secceed so bad.
Invest in liberalism go broke oh well
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
A federal judge demanded it be built, so let the feds pay for it. There are no national security or safety reasons, it was to 'offset' the additional pollution from cars caused by the Big Dig. Ironically, there is probably lot less pollution from cars since the days of the old central artery due to advancements in emission control systems.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 28, 2017, 02:11:49 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 27, 2017, 12:35:58 PM
Why would the US spend money in CA? After all they want to secceed so bad.
Invest in liberalism go broke oh well
Doomsday clock on the thread inches closer to midnight...
Quote from: SectorZ on January 28, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
A federal judge demanded it be built, so let the feds pay for it. There are no national security or safety reasons, it was to 'offset' the additional pollution from cars caused by the Big Dig. Ironically, there is probably lot less pollution from cars since the days of the old central artery due to advancements in emission control systems.
What federal judge demanded it be built?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 11:38:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 28, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
A federal judge demanded it be built, so let the feds pay for it. There are no national security or safety reasons, it was to 'offset' the additional pollution from cars caused by the Big Dig. Ironically, there is probably lot less pollution from cars since the days of the old central artery due to advancements in emission control systems.
What federal judge demanded it be built?
http://archive.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/green-line-extension
Quote
OSPCD - Green Line Extension
History
The idea of extending the Green Line to Somerville is by no means a new concept. As early as the 1920s the Metropolitan Planning Commission considered the possibility. Numerous studies promoted the plan over the next decades. In 1990, Massachusetts agreed to extend the Green Line to offset the pollution increase within Somerville caused by the Big Dig. Despite this legal commitment, however, the Green Line Extension project lagged far behind schedule, prompting the City of Somerville and the Conservation Law Foundation to file a lawsuit to keep the project moving. In 2006, this litigation, with the help of community support and advocacy groups such as Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) and the Union Square Task Force, finally brought about a multi-million dollar state investment in the Green Line extension from Lechmere Station into Somerville and Medford.
Looks like promised multiple times on different levels, but unfunded commitment.
And, just for reference, another federal funding pledge from 2014:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/02/federal-officials-pledge-nearly-help-extend-green-line-into-somerville-and-medford/WstVh8YwfH6dbL6toVIWNI/story.html
Quote from: kalvado on January 28, 2017, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 11:38:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 28, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
A federal judge demanded it be built, so let the feds pay for it. There are no national security or safety reasons, it was to 'offset' the additional pollution from cars caused by the Big Dig. Ironically, there is probably lot less pollution from cars since the days of the old central artery due to advancements in emission control systems.
What federal judge demanded it be built?
http://archive.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/green-line-extension
Quote
OSPCD - Green Line Extension
History
The idea of extending the Green Line to Somerville is by no means a new concept. As early as the 1920s the Metropolitan Planning Commission considered the possibility. Numerous studies promoted the plan over the next decades. In 1990, Massachusetts agreed to extend the Green Line to offset the pollution increase within Somerville caused by the Big Dig. Despite this legal commitment, however, the Green Line Extension project lagged far behind schedule, prompting the City of Somerville and the Conservation Law Foundation to file a lawsuit to keep the project moving. In 2006, this litigation, with the help of community support and advocacy groups such as Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) and the Union Square Task Force, finally brought about a multi-million dollar state investment in the Green Line extension from Lechmere Station into Somerville and Medford.
Looks like promised multiple times on different levels, but unfunded commitment.
And, just for reference, another federal funding pledge from 2014:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/02/federal-officials-pledge-nearly-help-extend-green-line-into-somerville-and-medford/WstVh8YwfH6dbL6toVIWNI/story.html
I am familiar with that backstory, but what I'm saying is, I don't recall that it was ordered by any federal judge.
It's actually a shame that such a thing did not happen. If you look at the ruling on the harbor cleanup under judge David Mazzone, there was oversight with real teeth. The same has not been true of the Big Dig transit commitments, which were a pretty sad afterthought.
The bulk of the line goes through the city of Somerville, which is standing its ground as a sanctuary city as the president threatens to withhold federal monies. Since this is a state project, I doubt it would be impacted, but it is causing some grumbling here. Folks along the line have seen their property values more than double in the past decade, and are eager to cash in.
Quote from: GenExpwy on January 27, 2017, 04:55:46 AM
In which states are the following projects?
8. NextGen Air Traffic Control System - various states
15. Cadiz Water Conveyance Project - California
16. TransWest Express Transmission - Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada (would also benefit, but is not physically located in, California)
44. Huntington Beach Desalination Plant - California
47. Seattle Airport Expansion - Washington
49. Energy Storage and Grid Modernization - various states
I do think it's good to see utility infrastructure getting some love here. It's unsexy and the average person takes it for granted (since we only use it indirectly), but it's just as important as transportation infrastructure to the functioning of civilization.
It seems a good number of these road projects are in states where the climate changes on a basis four times a year. Meaning the roads will wear out faster with thermal cycling, in my opinion that is. Plus population density.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 06, 2017, 08:07:27 AM
It seems a good number of these road projects are in states where the climate changes on a basis four times a year.
Dude. Learn the difference between weather and climate.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 28, 2017, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 11:38:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 28, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
I'd like to know what national security or safety emergency requires the Green Line extension to be built through Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts
A federal judge demanded it be built, so let the feds pay for it. There are no national security or safety reasons, it was to 'offset' the additional pollution from cars caused by the Big Dig. Ironically, there is probably lot less pollution from cars since the days of the old central artery due to advancements in emission control systems.
What federal judge demanded it be built?
http://archive.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/green-line-extension
Quote
OSPCD - Green Line Extension
History
The idea of extending the Green Line to Somerville is by no means a new concept. As early as the 1920s the Metropolitan Planning Commission considered the possibility. Numerous studies promoted the plan over the next decades. In 1990, Massachusetts agreed to extend the Green Line to offset the pollution increase within Somerville caused by the Big Dig. Despite this legal commitment, however, the Green Line Extension project lagged far behind schedule, prompting the City of Somerville and the Conservation Law Foundation to file a lawsuit to keep the project moving. In 2006, this litigation, with the help of community support and advocacy groups such as Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) and the Union Square Task Force, finally brought about a multi-million dollar state investment in the Green Line extension from Lechmere Station into Somerville and Medford.
Looks like promised multiple times on different levels, but unfunded commitment.
And, just for reference, another federal funding pledge from 2014:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/02/federal-officials-pledge-nearly-help-extend-green-line-into-somerville-and-medford/WstVh8YwfH6dbL6toVIWNI/story.html
I am familiar with that backstory, but what I'm saying is, I don't recall that it was ordered by any federal judge.
It's actually a shame that such a thing did not happen. If you look at the ruling on the harbor cleanup under judge David Mazzone, there was oversight with real teeth. The same has not been true of the Big Dig transit commitments, which were a pretty sad afterthought.
The bulk of the line goes through the city of Somerville, which is standing its ground as a sanctuary city as the president threatens to withhold federal monies. Since this is a state project, I doubt it would be impacted, but it is causing some grumbling here. Folks along the line have seen their property values more than double in the past decade, and are eager to cash in.
My apologies, I misspoke on that. A federal judge did sign off on the settlement between the Commonwealth and the Conservation Law Foundation. Amazingly, how CLF hasn't just sued by claiming Mass has violated the terms of the settlement, or at the very least demanded the judge force enforcement of the settlement, is beyond me.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 06, 2017, 12:10:12 PM
My apologies, I misspoke on that. A federal judge did sign off on the settlement between the Commonwealth and the Conservation Law Foundation. Amazingly, how CLF hasn't just sued by claiming Mass has violated the terms of the settlement, or at the very least demanded the judge force enforcement of the settlement, is beyond me.
The CLF was active in holding the state to this agreement for many years. Then they conceded to sign off on the Commonwealth's reneging about 10 years ago. I do wonder how much of this had to do with Romney having Doug Foy on board, the former head of the CLF. I know there were people that worked actively with the CLF on this for many years that felt betrayed by that.
Damn....Mississippi River dredging gets in for LA, but I-49 South doesn't? Sad.
There's a bunch of good projects on this list. I am excited about them all. Among the most interesting to me are the new Gordie Howe International Bridge, the I-71/I-75 (Brent Spence Bridge) replacement, the high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston, and the improvements to Interstate 95 in North Carolina. I am very glad that some attention is being given to these infrastructure projects. :nod:
Hilarious direction for the reporting to go, IMHO (NYT, 2/4/17):
As Trump Vows Building Splurge, Famed Traffic Choke Point Offers Warning
"BREEZEWOOD, Pa. – Millions of people who travel between the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest each year fight through Breezewood, Pa., a strange gap in the Interstate System. A leg of Route I-70 brings drivers north from Washington and Baltimore to plug into the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the great road network that runs west to the heartland cities of Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago.
But no ramps join these two huge highways at their crossing. Instead, drivers travel an extra two-mile loop that takes them out of rural Appalachia and into several suddenly urban blocks with traffic lights and a dense bazaar of gas stations, fast-food restaurants and motels.
"Things that make no sense: Breezewood, Pa. Why does the interstate turn into an interchange?" Stephanie Wonderlick recently posted on Twitter as she and her family returned home to Washington from Milwaukee.
She is not alone. Many other drivers vent similar – often profane – anger and confusion about this notorious choke point. As a Washingtonian from northern Indiana who transits Breezewood for family visits, I have often wondered the same thing – a question that became more galling after my younger son, jolted by our sudden deceleration into the area's stop-and-go traffic, threw up all over the back seat.
The answer lies at the intersection of politics and transportation policy. At a time when President Trump wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, the story of Breezewood offers a vivid case study in governance over such projects. It shows how legal quirks, powerful politicians and opaque bureaucratic procedures can influence decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars.
Full text at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/a-pennsylvania-highway-town-at-the-junction-of-politics-and-policy.html
When I lived in Maryland, and my parents were living in Ohio, I would bypass Breezewood by going through Morgantown on what are now 68 and 79. This was when the US-48 freeway only went from Morgantown to Cumberland, and you had to take US-40 up over Sideling Hill. It was still more relaxing than going through Breezewood. It's totally ridiculous that they won't fix it.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 07, 2017, 07:16:51 AM
Hilarious direction for the reporting to go, IMHO (NYT, 2/4/17):
As Trump Vows Building Splurge, Famed Traffic Choke Point Offers Warning
"BREEZEWOOD, Pa. – Millions of people who travel between the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest each year fight through Breezewood, Pa., a strange gap in the Interstate System. A leg of Route I-70 brings drivers north from Washington and Baltimore to plug into the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the great road network that runs west to the heartland cities of Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago.
But no ramps join these two huge highways at their crossing. Instead, drivers travel an extra two-mile loop that takes them out of rural Appalachia and into several suddenly urban blocks with traffic lights and a dense bazaar of gas stations, fast-food restaurants and motels.
"Things that make no sense: Breezewood, Pa. Why does the interstate turn into an interchange?" Stephanie Wonderlick recently posted on Twitter as she and her family returned home to Washington from Milwaukee.
She is not alone. Many other drivers vent similar – often profane – anger and confusion about this notorious choke point. As a Washingtonian from northern Indiana who transits Breezewood for family visits, I have often wondered the same thing – a question that became more galling after my younger son, jolted by our sudden deceleration into the area's stop-and-go traffic, threw up all over the back seat.
The answer lies at the intersection of politics and transportation policy. At a time when President Trump wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, the story of Breezewood offers a vivid case study in governance over such projects. It shows how legal quirks, powerful politicians and opaque bureaucratic procedures can influence decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars.
Full text at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/a-pennsylvania-highway-town-at-the-junction-of-politics-and-policy.html
Breezewood is from the old days of ticket toll roads where direct ramps not really put in and they just used the local roads. Non ticket toll roads did that to a lesser level.
Now they can build some ez-pass only ramps.
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well,
some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
The recurring crashes on I-70 westbound (really headed north at that point) approaching Breezewood are enough reason to hate the place and avoid spending money there.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that. Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?
All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs. You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.
Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue. No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that. Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?
All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs. You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.
Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue. No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
I suppose -- in that context -- the concept of the
greater good is right out the window! Is it unreasonable to expect the roadside business owners in Breezewood to make plans to do what is necessary to keep at least a portion of their business going (slight nearby relocation, pressing for at least town interchange access to a throughput ramp system on I-70) if & when such nonstop ramps are in place? Obviously, maintaining a "captive audience" situation is deemed necessary for these subregional endeavors. But I'll reiterate the oldest cliché in the book: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! Applied here -- you can make through traffic slog a few blocks down a commercial street, but you can't make anyone buy what you have to sell! Clearly the town -- and the politicos supporting that stance -- are counting on "opportunities of non-convenience: a traveler attitude of "well, as long as we're having to put up with this shit, we may as well stop and get a bag of chips/snag a Big Gulp/take a pee/whatever.........!" I've been through Breezewood three times in my life, and declined to patronize the local businesses/franchises. And I'll wager that with at least repeat visitors, that inclination outstrips the willingness to stop & buy!
I wonder how Jersey City would feel if an actual freeway was ever proposed for I-78 (although it would have to be tunneled under that stretch)? Personally, I don't mind Breezewood having the infamous gap in I-70, although it would be nice to have direct connections to the Turnpike for anyone who wishes to completely bypass it.
I would think that the number of people who intentionally boycott Breezewood would at least equal those who stop because they are forced to pass through there.
Personally, I don't think that adding a couple of ramps to allow for a through I-70 east-west movement would hurt Breezewood's economy all that much. There are no convenient services southeast of Breezewood until you get to Hagerstown, and even then, most of those are off I-81 and not handy for I-70 traffic. Anyone who needs gas or wants to get a bite to eat will still patronize Breezewood. And if the business owners finally drop their resistance to a couple of direct ramps, they might actually see some increase in business due to goodwill.
And, anyone wanting to make the connection from I-76 west to I-70 east, or I-70 west to I-76 east, would not benefit from a direct I-70 connection if only two ramps were built. They'd still have to go through Breezewood. The big hangup is for through I-70 traffic, and that's what the ramps would need to address.
It's almost comical to watch attitudes change on the Texas bullet train. Before the election it was a boondoggle and a waste of money. But now that Trump is for it, those same people in Dallas who opposed it are practically ready to buy Astros season tickets.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 25, 2017, 11:40:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2017, 10:40:04 PM
Regarding I-95 in North Carolina, there was a report today that widening said Route in South Carolina would cost about $4 billion including necessary interchange reconstruction to make room for the added lanes. I-95 in North Carolina is about ten or twelve miles shorter and has the more modern section near Fayetteville, so it might not cost quite as much, but then on the other hand it has the very problematic section in Lumberton. Can't imagine they could widen it for just $1.5 billion.
In 2012 - the estimate was $4 4 billion.
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-95-tolling-public-hearing-wilson-nc.html?m=1
Maybe some of the ideas and scope in n the 2012 proposal were cut. Worth looking into.
Looking at the STI map which shows projects that scored well enough for funding as well as those that did not, here is a breakdown of I-95 widening projects submitted:
SC to I-74 (6 lanes): $306M
I-74 to Exit 22 (8 lanes): $195M
Exit 22 to Exit 40 (8 lanes): $375M
Exit 40 to NC 53 (8 lanes): $305M
NC 53 to Exit 56 (8 lanes): $195M
Exit 56 to Exit 71 (8 lanes): $339M
Exit 71 to I-40 (8 lanes): $217M
I-40 to just north of US 264: No projects listed
just north of US 264 to just north of US 64 (6 lanes): $391M
just north of US 64 to just north of NC 481 (6 lanes): $294M
just north of NC 481 to Northampton/Halifax line (6 lanes): $487M
Northampton/Halifax line to VA (6 lanes): $220M
Total that does not include 40 miles of I-95: $3.32B
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that. Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?
All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs. You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.
Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue. No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
I suppose -- in that context -- the concept of the greater good is right out the window! Is it unreasonable to expect the roadside business owners in Breezewood to make plans to do what is necessary to keep at least a portion of their business going (slight nearby relocation, pressing for at least town interchange access to a throughput ramp system on I-70) if & when such nonstop ramps are in place? Obviously, maintaining a "captive audience" situation is deemed necessary for these subregional endeavors. But I'll reiterate the oldest cliché in the book: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! Applied here -- you can make through traffic slog a few blocks down a commercial street, but you can't make anyone buy what you have to sell! Clearly the town -- and the politicos supporting that stance -- are counting on "opportunities of non-convenience: a traveler attitude of "well, as long as we're having to put up with this shit, we may as well stop and get a bag of chips/snag a Big Gulp/take a pee/whatever.........!" I've been through Breezewood three times in my life, and declined to patronize the local businesses/franchises. And I'll wager that with at least repeat visitors, that inclination outstrips the willingness to stop & buy!
I just don't think it's reasonable to expect these folks that are invested in the current situation to lead the way in undoing it.
This is such a long list. It seems more like someone's "fictional highways" list that doesn't involve finding money or making difficult choices about what's most important. Congress would have to agree to either higher gas taxes or additional deficit spending and both seem like political poison.
Looks like the ARC Tunnel is back -- and extended! (And its it mirror-imaged as well??). Quite a few other rapid transit projects like 2nd Avenue Tunell in NYC, the M-1 Railway in Detroit, the Purple Line in Metro DC Maryland side, and the Green Line Extension in Boston.*
* In 2015 when the estimates came in for the project for $2 billion, the new governor, Charlie Baker, told the engineers to reestimate and redesign to cut costs to $1 bn, double the cost of the M-1 project. Turns out the cost only grew! Stupid engineers! :pan:
Quote from: EdM on February 10, 2017, 03:32:05 PM
Looks like the ARC Tunnel is back -- and extended!
It's not the ARC tunnel. The ARC tunnel was a dead-end to Macy's Basement, which would've only been used by NJ Transit.
The proposed tunnel is what should've been done in the first place - it's a tunnel for Amtrak and NJ Transit to Penn Station, and will allow thru trains up and down the east coast. It also will allow the original, current tunnel to be shut down and repaired.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2017, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done. Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen. If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.
If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that. Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?
All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs. You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.
Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue. No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
I suppose -- in that context -- the concept of the greater good is right out the window! Is it unreasonable to expect the roadside business owners in Breezewood to make plans to do what is necessary to keep at least a portion of their business going (slight nearby relocation, pressing for at least town interchange access to a throughput ramp system on I-70) if & when such nonstop ramps are in place? Obviously, maintaining a "captive audience" situation is deemed necessary for these subregional endeavors. But I'll reiterate the oldest cliché in the book: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! Applied here -- you can make through traffic slog a few blocks down a commercial street, but you can't make anyone buy what you have to sell! Clearly the town -- and the politicos supporting that stance -- are counting on "opportunities of non-convenience: a traveler attitude of "well, as long as we're having to put up with this shit, we may as well stop and get a bag of chips/snag a Big Gulp/take a pee/whatever.........!" I've been through Breezewood three times in my life, and declined to patronize the local businesses/franchises. And I'll wager that with at least repeat visitors, that inclination outstrips the willingness to stop & buy!
I just don't think it's reasonable to expect these folks that are invested in the current situation to lead the way in undoing it.
Obviously one wouldn't expect Breezewood residents -- or even their legislative representatives at the state (or even national) level to take the lead in correcting the lack of route continuity there -- it's certainly not in their best short-term interest to do so. But it is the responsibility of other agencies and entities to elucidate the problem, contact all parties involved, and come up with a solution that, to some degree, satisfies both the driving public and local interests. Right now it's being portrayed as an "all-or-nothing" situation, with the status quo being cited as the only thing making Breezewood financially viable -- and it appears that both PennDOT and the turnpike authority have, at least passively, bought into that argument by not even putting any potential solutions or even compromises on the table; they're, in effect, perpetually kicking the can down the road. This is something that may have to be dealt with at the federal level, by FHWA taking point in bringing the force of USDOT down on the situation. But after 40 years of the existence of this situation, nothing's been accomplished, likely due to political pressure that's resulted in any possibility of federal action being stopped before it starts (being in a perennially Shuster district certainly hasn't hurt the status quo!). It may take more generational change in attitudes before anything is done here.