The recently approved and currently under construction 9B will be formally called Interstate 795 when complete.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-795_fl.html
No designation is currently listed for the Cecil/Brannan/Chaffee beltway under consideration.
Quote from: spuwho on June 30, 2010, 12:47:11 AM
The recently approved and currently under construction 9B will be formally called Interstate 795 when complete.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-795_fl.html
No designation is currently listed for the Cecil/Brannan/Chaffee beltway under consideration.
The outer beltway is most likely to be SR-23 (since a majority of it is already signed as SR-23), and in the future if it is highway standards, possibly I-210.
I'm not sure that website is at all reliable...it lists I-67 as a potential I-10 to I-65 cpnnector parallel to US 231 in Florida...but most studies for the connection have it 60-120 miles west in Escambia, Santa Rosa, or Okaloosa counties.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 30, 2010, 04:52:48 AM
I'm not sure that website is at all reliable...it lists I-67 as a potential I-10 to I-65 cpnnector parallel to US 231 in Florida...but most studies for the connection have it 60-120 miles west in Escambia, Santa Rosa, or Okaloosa counties.
The site is accurate for I-795 as that designation appears on the FDOT planning maps and has been approved by the FHWA.
As far as I-67 goes, there are several states petitioning for an "I-67". The website lists the Florida route as "conjecture" meaning no route has ever been formally set. Usually a general route is set before a funding request is made, usually through the TEA and ISTEA and similarly named programs out of Congress. The I-67 route from Florida north via Dothan is the one mentioned the most.
On the "Outer Belt" what i meant to say is that no one has submitted an interstate designation request to the FHWA if the route is to be completed. Therefore it keeps it state designation.
Many of these proposed interstates fall victim to the tug of war in the Congress for road funds. For example, there have been several attempts to have a direct expressway between Minn/St Paul and St Louis, but it keeps getting held up by Wisconsin which demands that any new freeway pass through their state. Of course its madness as this would add 250 miles to the route which essentially kills it. So for now trucks waste fuel by going via KC or Peoria, IL. The same for a direct Chicago/Kansas City route. This one dies because the Iowa delegation insists the ROW pass through their state, adding miles and making it impractical.
The silliest is the battle between Kansas and Missouri on who is going to own the KC to Houston route. Both states DOT's have been pumping dollars into parallel routes on each side of their state lines. Missouri will probably win because Arkansas has done more due to the Wal Mart HQ locale.
It just shows you how political highways are.
Quote from: spuwho on June 30, 2010, 11:59:43 PM
As far as I-67 goes, there are several states petitioning for an "I-67". The website lists the Florida route as "conjecture" meaning no route has ever been formally set. Usually a general route is set before a funding request is made, usually through the TEA and ISTEA and similarly named programs out of Congress. The I-67 route from Florida north via Dothan is the one mentioned the most.
If anyone ever doubted that the Interstate System was initally designed to take down the railroads while providing a "FREE" ride for the highway industry, I thought we could look at these routes from another angle.
I-67 via Dothan?
Alongside the Atlantic Coast Line, today's CSX Montgomery Subdivision mainline. hum? Did they kill a train on that route? Oh did they!
The South Wind departed Chicago Union Station and ran through Logansport and Indianapolis to Louisville Union Station. It then proceeded down the Louisville & Nashville main line through Bowling Green, Nashville, and Birmingham to Montgomery. From Montgomery, it ran down the Atlantic Coast Line through Dothan, Thomasville and Waycross to Jacksonville.
Overview
Type Inter-city rail
System Amtrak
Status Discontinued
QuoteOn the "Outer Belt" what i meant to say is that no one has submitted an interstate designation request to the FHWA if the route is to be completed. Therefore it keeps it state designation.
No railroad there today, but it would run roughly along the routes of the former South-Western Railroad of Florida, and on the St. Johns side, along the surveyed route of the proposed extension of the Ocklawaha Valley Railroad. QuoteMany of these proposed interstates fall victim to the tug of war in the Congress for road funds. For example, there have been several attempts to have a direct expressway between Minn/St Paul and St Louis, but it keeps getting held up by Wisconsin which demands that any new freeway pass through their state. Of course its madness as this would add 250 miles to the route which essentially kills it. So for now trucks waste fuel by going via KC or Peoria, IL. The same for a direct Chicago/Kansas City route. This one dies because the Iowa delegation insists the ROW pass through their state, adding miles and making it impractical.
Alongside the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy and the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroads, today's Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Oh and that train that they killed? Here it is folks!
Zephyr Rocket Consists
#61-561 (St. Louis)Burlington-St. Paul/Minneapolis
#62-562 St. Paul/Minneapolis-Burlington(St.Louis)
CB&Q #15/#8: St. Louis-BurlingtonQuoteThe silliest is the battle between Kansas and Missouri on who is going to own the KC to Houston route. Both states DOT's have been pumping dollars into parallel routes on each side of their state lines. Missouri will probably win because Arkansas has done more due to the Wal Mart HQ locale.
Yeah, that and the fact that Arkansas has already finished the highway from Ft. Smith north to the Missouri border... Right alongside the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad...
Oh but that longer distance? KC to HOU? HA! We could call it wasteful duplication of the Santa Fe, Rock Island, Kansas City Southern, Missouri-Kansas-Texas and the Missouri Pacific of just a few years ago. Today one would spell that KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN, UNION PACIFIC, and BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE. ... and of course the "Mighty Fine Line" the Rock Island is dead and abandoned in the 1980's blame could be placed 100% on the government. (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TCwZqEIGrdI/AAAAAAAACwY/EPqg4wqshHs/s800/Dallas%20Union%20Station%20about%201910%20TP%20and%20HTC%20junction.jpg)
Dallas Union Station 1910 version, where the Texas Pacific and Houston and Texas Central crossed each other. Both pioneer carriers became components of the larger systems mentioned above.
and below? The same general location today, in fact when you reach the Pacific Avenue flyovers, you are directly over the grave of the two railroads and station. (http://www.okroads.com/121702/i10txexit782.JPG)
QuoteIt just shows you how political highways are.
I couldn't agree more, now what was it that FDOT guy said about how they have "always loved and supported rail?" Uh Huh? OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: spuwho on June 30, 2010, 11:59:43 PM
The site is accurate for I-795 as that designation appears on the FDOT planning maps and has been approved by the FHWA.
which planning maps are those?
I've got my own ideas on how the "Beltway" will be designated-or named,assuming there is ever to be a ground breaking.
(At the Brannon/Chaffee ground breaking Army Corps of Engineers Colonel Joe Miller called me via cel phone from the event site...to apologize. He would later end up in the Delaney administration for a very short tenure).
Through various format, roadway sections to be named in honor of certain persons,events,even references to Official Record Book & Page.
SR 9B, I-795, whatever... my name is I-SI: "Interstate - Special Interest".
Last month drove I-80 across Utah, Nevada and California and discovered that it exactly followed the path of the original trans-continental railroad. It at least is still in use for freight and has some spectacular sections of engineering as it goes through the Sierra Nevada mountains.
Ock is right. It would be interesting to overlay a national map of the Interstate system and the earlier railroads.
part of the reason interstates follow old roads and rail lines (especially through mountains) is simple 'path of least resistance'.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 01, 2010, 08:12:51 AM
Quote from: spuwho on June 30, 2010, 11:59:43 PM
The site is accurate for I-795 as that designation appears on the FDOT planning maps and has been approved by the FHWA.
which planning maps are those?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_Beltway_V.2_Full.png
The planning image was taken from a presentation done on the First Coast Outer Beltway.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 01, 2010, 12:48:36 AM
If anyone ever doubted that the Interstate System was initally designed to take down the railroads while providing a "FREE" ride for the highway industry, I thought we could look at these routes from another angle.
OCKLAWAHA
When the National Interstate System was conceived, the railroads were already in decline due to poor rate structures, apathetic regulation with one foot still in 1925, and indifferent attitudes towards shippers.
So while it is easy to blame "free" highways for the decline of US railroads, it was actually already in progress for some 30 years.
The desire of the people for mobility without the constraints of schedules and enforced routes is what killed passenger rail. An inflexible rate structure mandated by the feds in concert with outdated union rules is what almost did them in on freight.
The fact that roads follow many RR ROW's is no coincidence as the RR surveyors were quite competent in their day and had the same goals any modern DOT would, best route with as few obstacles and as low cost as possible.
You can thank the Staggers Act for reviving the freight railroad business and deregulation to the STB for allowing "dead running" railroads to fail or merge. The need for deregulation was made obvious and clear with the Rock Island debacle and the merger of the Pennsylvania with the NYC.
Interstate Highways merely accelerated a process that had begun many years prior and facilitated the changes that helped them become what they are today. To "blame" them is just an easy way to avoid history.
I would think if you look at the piggyback business, interstates and railroads would compliment each other (i.e. 1 + 1 = 3) in an intermodal sense. Long hauls by rail, door-to-door delivery that last mile from the intermodal terminal by truck.
The gripe I would have is that too many trucks (and cars) use the interstates for longer hauls when rail might be more cost efficient if the roads were not so overly subsidized versus rail.
Quote from: spuwho on July 01, 2010, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 01, 2010, 12:48:36 AM
If anyone ever doubted that the Interstate System was initally designed to take down the railroads while providing a "FREE" ride for the highway industry, I thought we could look at these routes from another angle.
OCKLAWAHA
(http://www.kinglyheirs.com/RailSiteLinksFiles/GinoEndOfTrack.jpg)
NEW YORK CENTRAL'S WEST SHORE LINE...QuoteWhen the National Interstate System was conceived, the railroads were already in decline due to poor rate structures, apathetic regulation with one foot still in 1925, and indifferent attitudes towards shippers.
How much of that decline was due to the competition, IE: truckers, buses and waterways getting a free ride on a more modern high speed roadway? Certainly this has never been quantified. QuoteSo while it is easy to blame "free" highways for the decline of US railroads, it was actually already in progress for some 30 years.
Railroad's reached a historic peak in tonnage and passengers during the depths of WWI and II. They reached the zenith of their US miles in 1923-24. At the end of WWII they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new equipment, diesels, replaced steam, new AC streamlined cars and trains, and larger modern freight cars. Yet by 1958, the railroad's commanding position in passenger travel slipped away to the airlines. By the mid 1960's the railroads were no longer carrying even 50% of America's freight. QuoteThe desire of the people for mobility without the constraints of schedules and enforced routes is what killed passenger rail. An inflexible rate structure mandated by the feds in concert with outdated union rules is what almost did them in on freight.
Mobility certainly played into this disaster on the rails, as well as apathy and Neanderthal leadership at the company HQ and Washington DC. No matter how you want to cut the blame, it was a combination of things that nearly spelled the end of "The Grand Conveyance." Isn't it strange that the Florida East Coast was able to buck all of these mighty doomsday engines and reverse the trend without outside help? Could the New York, Ontario and Western? Lehigh and New England? Rock Island? Milwaukee Road? or Espee have reversed the trend on their own properties? Doubtful as their was too much outside interference. QuoteThe fact that roads follow many RR ROW's is no coincidence as the RR surveyors were quite competent in their day and had the same goals any modern DOT would, best route with as few obstacles and as low cost as possible.
That's not a highly accurate statement as the railroads were generally laid down with state-of-the-art survey and construction materials circa 1870, and the interstates with the monster machines and lasers of today. True that a pass is a pass, is a pass, but cresting that summit at 4,800 feet with a modern 49 mile long highway, is a far cry from cresting that "same" summit at 10,500 feet after an all day climb over 158 miles of spiraling track. QuoteYou can thank the Staggers Act for reviving the freight railroad business and deregulation to the STB for allowing "dead running" railroads to fail or merge. The need for deregulation was made obvious and clear with the Rock Island debacle and the merger of the Pennsylvania with the NYC.
Agreed, though it is probably time to put the brakes on further wholesale abandonments in favor of rail-banking. QuoteInterstate Highways merely accelerated a process that had begun many years prior and facilitated the changes that helped them become what they are today. To "blame" them is just an easy way to avoid history.
It's not avoiding history, rather its just a lighter look at the "what if's" of our past. You misunderstood me if you thought I was suggesting all of the ills belong to the Interstates.
Throughout the 1920's the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific RR, protested that it was FORCED to pay into a fund (taxes) dedicated to building the highway system of Oklahoma. Newspaper articles appear in abundance over this same subject, and in Florida's case, EVERY able bodied male was required to serve in a "road camp" during the roaring twenties, including railroad employees. So not only did the railroads partly finance the roads, the very workers they depended on were forced under severe penalties to work XX weeks EVERY year until their quota of road building was complete.
It's a theory shared by much of the railroad press, that the highway industry is far from innocent in this fight for survival. OCKLAWAHA
I am sure we could debate rail, roads and other items all day.
However, even with roads, there is no "free" ride. Roads are paid for by fuel taxes.
Yes, even commercial firms have to pay taxes on the fuel they use on the roads.
While what they pay relative to the weight and damage they cause IMHO is not up to snuff, they do pay just like all of us regular people.
So is it "free", not really.
Actually a few years ago a calculation was made that said all of the taxes paid by commercial vehicles would patch the potholes on the New York Thruway and PA Turnpike for a single year! :o
I see that your relatively new, a belated welcome. Did you know I'm the resident Rail Planner having planned much of Colombia's Railroad System? YUP! You sound connected too...?? ;)
By the way I double as the "old Hippie" "Class Clown" and "Sarcastic SOB" when needs be... ;D
OCKLAWAHA :D
It does not matter to me just what any road designator is..........that has nothing to do with it being built with my and your tax dollars! Glad to see we could help out the freight industry on trucking things here there and everywhere! Freight needs to be railed to a modal point and then trucked to where ever........not pulled by tractor the whole route long..............but thats just me! We need more concrete to expand for more bus's.....right after we do a few more studies to look at the problem! ::)
I'm not a big fan of this road, but it is disingenuous to say it will only serve the trucking industry and developers...I'm betting that a significant % ofthe users will be Duval and St. Johns residents...and truck traffic will likely be no more than 15% of the total.
You and I are on the same page TU... I'm not a big fan, but CAN see some use for it. As for traffic, I'll bet it's well used by the St. Johns bunch. I live in WGV and I'll use it every time I'm headed for Jax Beach or Mayport NS. You might be right about the truck traffic at the start, but once they figure out that this will save time and diesel, (no matter how small) they'll flood this thing. Port traffic in and out will be using it too, ending a lot of the use on I-95 through downtown today. When the City goes Commuter Rail, and rebuilds the JACKSONVILLE BELT RAILROAD "S" line, the remaining truck traffic through downtown, headed to Bowden, could be loaded in Springfield/Talleyrand and moved by rail.
Between the 795 taking the Blount Island Port Trafic, and the Jacksonville Belt Railroad taking the Talleyrand Port Traffic, we should see a remarkable reduction of heavy trucks through downtown on 95.
OCKLAWAHA
There are two things to consider when discussing new transportation infrastructure.
1. Of course it will get some use as a short cut by drivers traveling to specific locations. Even South Carolina's Southern Connector gets driven on by some people.
2. Yet, none of this means that it is worth the investment or truly needed.
QuoteBetween the 795 taking the Blount Island Port Trafic, and the Jacksonville Belt Railroad taking the Talleyrand Port Traffic, we should see a remarkable reduction of heavy trucks through downtown on 95.
I don't see how this stub alone takes anything off of I-95, between I-295/9A (on the Southside) and the County Line (Southside). All it is, is a super expensive way to eventually (phase II - the I-95 interchange - is still unfunded) divert some traffic around two I-95 interchanges. Ohter than that, it will open thousands of acres of undeveloped land to possible development.
My wild guess is that this is the real motivation and purpose for the project. While I'm opposed to "unsustainable" (note: I did not say all) sprawl, I do believe it would be more respectable if project backers stopped lying to citizens and just tell the truth from day one.
lake I concur! It may well relieve some of the I95 traffic and there is no doubt that trucks will be using it but, as you point out (I have also for quite some time) it will be an artery for development plain and simple. It does not matter that some private concerns will pay for an interchange off of it, if the road was not put in, there would be no interchange! I don't think we need more roads, we need some sort of light rail system to really relieve congestion..........buts that just me! We need some people with vision and a possible plan to really get some relief from unsustainable developement or sprawl!
Quote from: thelakelander on July 04, 2010, 05:54:04 AM
... it will open thousands of undeveloped land to possible development.
My wild guess is that this is the real motivation and purpose for the project. While I'm opposed to "unsustainable" (note: I did not say all) sprawl, I do believe it would be more respectable if project backers stopped lying to citizens and just tell the truth from day one.
Hit the nail on the head, Lake. This road is being built because developers cooked it up and got lucky to find the Fed's anxious to blow money on anything "shovel ready" that creates instant jobs. Had we a mass transit plan ready to go, as we should have, maybe these same $$$ would have gone there. Of course, FDOT and JTA don't want to see that so they sabotaged the outcome.
I think we need to not split JTA, but totally dissolve it, and replace it with a mass transit agency ONLY. FDOT can worry about all our future roads. JTA is just duplication. And, all major local priorities in Duval County have been handled for now and we certainly don't need to two road building agencies making up projects to keep busy.
here's the rub folks....almost every transportatioon infrastructure project benefits developers in some way....for example, it has been noted on this site many times that rail transit leads to new investment (i.e., development)....now I agree it is likely more desirable development, but none of you seem to be complaining about this.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2010, 11:14:08 PM
here's the rub folks....almost every transportatioon infrastructure project benefits developers in some way...
Some projects benefit developers ONLY and hurt the rest of the citizenry. Other projects MAY benefit developers AND DO benefit the citizenry. 9B and the Outer Beltway only benefit developers and hurt most of the rest of us. Get the difference? ;)
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2010, 11:14:08 PM
here's the rub folks....almost every transportatioon infrastructure project benefits developers in some way....for example, it has been noted on this site many times that rail transit leads to new investment (i.e., development)....now I agree it is likely more desirable development, but none of you seem to be complaining about this.
I have to agree with Stjr on this particular one. I would like to see those backing projects like this to just be honest. If it's being built for development purposes, go ahead, say it and sell it on that. Selling the public these projects are being built for traffic congestion relief is disingenuous because we all know that's not true. That's what separates the planning of these projects from the rail discussion. No one is claiming that rail or roads will relieve vehicular traffic congestion. Unless you're willing to prohibit development, there is no cure. Instead, choice, an enhanced quality of life, affordability and economic development are being promoted on that end.
You won't find me complaining about transit inspired development because typically it is retrofitting or infill. (watch the professor's video!) 9B will only create the destruction of more forests and wetlands and the development of more asphalt destinations. How much money was spent on the new I95-295 interchange a few years ago? We were told that would relieve congestion which it kind of did to a certain extent. Now the same argument is being given for 9B. The developers and FDOT will continue to use this same justification for every road project until will call them out on it.
Quote from: stjr on July 05, 2010, 12:03:13 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2010, 11:14:08 PM
here's the rub folks....almost every transportatioon infrastructure project benefits developers in some way...
Some projects benefit developers ONLY and hurt the rest of the citizenry. Other projects MAY benefit developers AND DO benefit the citizenry. 9B and the Outer Beltway only benefit developers and hurt most of the rest of us. Get the difference? ;)
I discovered the prelude to Nocatee years before that controversial development sprang forth,while reviewing MPO future roadway maps....a curious dotted line traversing lands that we had gone to bat to protect against the SE Landfill proposal.
Didn't know any details of Nocatee at the time,but the hint was there.
At one time the St.Johns Water management District Recreational Advisory Committee meetings were held at a particular Planner & Consultant office facility.The map images on display were telling.Advisory Committee members were so distraught with the implications of holding meetings at such a venue that the District agreed to hold the meetings elsewhere.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 05, 2010, 06:47:09 AM
I have to agree with Stjr on this particular one. I would like to see those backing projects like this to just be honest. If it's being built for development purposes, go ahead, say it and sell it on that. Selling the public these projects are being built for traffic congestion relief is disingenuous because we all know that's not true. That's what separates the planning of these projects from the rail discussion. No one is claiming that rail or roads will relieve vehicular traffic congestion. Unless you're willing to prohibit development, there is no cure. Instead, choice, an enhanced quality of life, affordability and economic development are being promoted on that end.
while we all know "we can't build our way out of congestion" the truth is that new and widened roads (including 9B) do alleviate congestion in the short-term....and sadly, there are many folks who will ask how many cars will be taken off the road w/ transit...so the congestion relief question will be asked.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 05, 2010, 11:21:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 05, 2010, 06:47:09 AM
I have to agree with Stjr on this particular one. I would like to see those backing projects like this to just be honest. If it's being built for development purposes, go ahead, say it and sell it on that. Selling the public these projects are being built for traffic congestion relief is disingenuous because we all know that's not true. That's what separates the planning of these projects from the rail discussion. No one is claiming that rail or roads will relieve vehicular traffic congestion. Unless you're willing to prohibit development, there is no cure. Instead, choice, an enhanced quality of life, affordability and economic development are being promoted on that end.
while we all know "we can't build our way out of congestion" the truth is that new and widened roads (including 9B) do alleviate congestion in the short-term....and sadly, there are many folks who will ask how many cars will be taken off the road w/ transit...so the congestion relief question will be asked.
Fixed rail transit absolutely eliminates congestion.
For all who use it.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 05, 2010, 11:21:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 05, 2010, 06:47:09 AM
I have to agree with Stjr on this particular one. I would like to see those backing projects like this to just be honest. If it's being built for development purposes, go ahead, say it and sell it on that. Selling the public these projects are being built for traffic congestion relief is disingenuous because we all know that's not true. That's what separates the planning of these projects from the rail discussion. No one is claiming that rail or roads will relieve vehicular traffic congestion. Unless you're willing to prohibit development, there is no cure. Instead, choice, an enhanced quality of life, affordability and economic development are being promoted on that end.
while we all know "we can't build our way out of congestion" the truth is that new and widened roads (including 9B) do alleviate congestion in the short-term....and sadly, there are many folks who will ask how many cars will be taken off the road w/ transit...so the congestion relief question will be asked.
The truth is we can't afford (or even attempt to justify) to continue to spend hundreds of millions on short term solutions that make long term problems significantly worse. At some point, the cycle has to end. So the question becomes, how do we get there?
^ Exactly! Unfortunately this requires a philosophical change within leaders and the public which isn't easy. It can be a very slow and frustrating process.
Well ....if we had some leaders who had the vision, we might have a chance! Most of the public has no flipping idea as to just what is going on or even why.......they just see their money being spent on public service projects right? I don't know about you guys&gals but I kinda get tired of funding every tom dick and harry's money making project with my tax dollars! Maybe we are just looking at the issues from the wrong direction......maybe this is something that should be included in any mayoral/senate/Governor and every other candidates platform? If we start at the local level and branch out from there..........who knows! We need to do something before we don't have the chance to correct the problem!
Quote from: CS Foltz on July 05, 2010, 05:15:28 PM
Well ....if we had some leaders who had the vision, we might have a chance!
would you be willing to spend more now in order to save over the long-term (20+ years)?
^ Yes, to get what I want. ;) I'm also fairly young, so I'll still be around in 20 years!
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 05, 2010, 09:46:44 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on July 05, 2010, 05:15:28 PM
Well ....if we had some leaders who had the vision, we might have a chance!
would you be willing to spend more now in order to save over the long-term (20+ years)?
The public will agree to any cost in the name of low taxes
tufsu................I am not against taxes nor am I against an increase in taxes persay! I am against "Fee's" that are a bandaid in place of "Fiscal Responsibility" from the Federal level down to our level! I am against waste and mismanagement of public funds collected for the various agencies to use! I have yet to see anything from the City making an attempt to control their blatant spending and when the so-called Mayor calls for a 3% paycut from the worker bee's and then ok's Mr Mosely and his pay and thinks nothing of it, it just reinforces the idea that John Boy is just interested in taking care of his and the hell with the rest of us. I have not heard of Johnny saying he is going to take a 3% paycut nor has any of his hench persons....... The GOB Network is hard at work protecting their special interests and the public just gets to pay for it! I could start listing all of the mismanagement from the current administration starting with the Ship Yards or Waste Management, but I am flogging a deceased bovine!
Dude...Mr. Mosely no longer works for the City...and deal was no different than any other City employee....its called honoring the union agreement.
as for the fees....garbage collection is currently being subsidized...folks want to see government operate like businesses....they don't often subsidize things....so charging a user fee seems completey in line with that thinking.
Quote from: stjr on July 05, 2010, 12:03:13 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 04, 2010, 11:14:08 PM
here's the rub folks....almost every transportatioon infrastructure project benefits developers in some way...
Some projects benefit developers ONLY and hurt the rest of the citizenry. Other projects MAY benefit developers AND DO benefit the citizenry. 9B and the Outer Beltway only benefit developers and hurt most of the rest of us. Get the difference? ;)
"Roads are the mother's milk of development"
- Peter R. St.Joe Co.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 06, 2010, 01:25:24 PM
Dude...Mr. Mosely no longer works for the City...and deal was no different than any other City employee....its called honoring the union agreement.
as for the fees....garbage collection is currently being subsidized...folks want to see government operate like businesses....they don't often subsidize things....so charging a user fee seems completey in line with that thinking.
Mosely's former position was AMIO! These folks are hired and fired at will w/ no protection or benefit of a union contract!
Ethylene................only too true! And only one of two hundred and twenty seven costing us some $27 Million Dollars a year, not to mention if your buddy's with John Boy, you get vacation pay and little plums like that, even though you currently work for the State now.................it must be nice! Besides tufsu, you leave a city job what guarantee sick leave, vacation will be paid? Union only goes so far and I am not sure that the upper management is represented by any union other than the Nifty Fifty!