Posted on 09/18/2017 1:46:52 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Or not. That's why Ohio insisted on the Federal government agreeing to build the road as a condition for them to join the Union. And even if the "east coast bankers" were willing to float bonds with tolls to finance such a project, this would have put Ohio and every other future frontier (at the time) state at a disadvantage against their Atlantic seaboard counterparts. The Federal government had already taken on responsibility for operating and maintaining the roads through the former Thirteen Colonies under its constitutional authority over "post roads" (which had been constructed prior to the American Revolution), so a scenario where commerce could flow on "free" north-south roads between the original thirteen states, but would be subject to tolls on new east-west roads across the Appalachians, didn't make any sense at the time.
Or they wouldn't build the projects at all -- even if they were projects of national significance.
Perfect case in point: the Alameda Corridor initiative in southern California, along a busy rail corridor that connects the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the interior of California. Something like 80% of the cargo moving through these two major ports is destined for points in the U.S. that are hundreds and thousands of miles away. The upgrades along this route involved both public and private partners (eliminating grade crossings where public streets crossed the railroads), and were aimed at improving the throughput of the rail system between California and the rest of the U.S.
If it were up to California alone to fund this whole thing, it would never get done. California would simply have plenty of better things to do with their fuel tax revenues than to improve the flow of freight through LA/Long Beach to Midwestern rail hubs like Chicago and Kansas City.
You see variations of this story repeated all over the country ... which is why major transportation projects often meet overlapping local, regional and national needs.
It's not a question of what Jefferson "said" ... it's a question of what he DID. Do you think he completed the Louisiana Purchase and sent Lewis and Clark on their merry way to map that vast territory just so the U.S. could step back and watch the British settle it?
“Or they wouldn’t build the projects at all”
Well OMG that would be their democratic choice, wouldn’t it.
“If it were up to California alone to fund this whole thing, it would never get done. California would simply have plenty of better things to do with their fuel tax revenues than to improve the flow of freight through LA/Long Beach to Midwestern rail hubs like Chicago and Kansas City.”
More B.S. Doing it is 100% in California’s interest, alone because were they not to do it the imports going to their ports would shrink, costing THEM economic benefits and jobs. Everyone else in the country WOULD get their imported goods, just not from California ports. The buyers across the country would care less about protecting California’s ports. California would compete with Texas, which, would, as a state competing with California, fund rails of its own from its ports to the midwest, and hubs for east & west routing from Oklahoma.
That's the whole point of having a national policy on transportation infrastructure ... to avoid that very scenario.
It’s not B.S. at all. California had done some very interesting economic studies over the years, and they determined that the jobs and economic activity at those ports simply weren’t worth the adverse impacts of all the congestion, diesel emissions, etc. In a large city, a major port facility is simply not the highest and best use of waterfront real estate at all.
“Or not. That’s why Ohio insisted on the Federal government agreeing to build the road as a condition for them to join the Union. And even if the “east coast bankers” were willing to float bonds with tolls to finance such a project, this would have put Ohio and every other future frontier (at the time) state at a disadvantage against their Atlantic seaboard counterparts.”
More nonsense. The only reason the politicians step in is (a) not ‘cause something wouldn’t get done, but (b) the politicians want in on the credit, and (c) the bankers and crony-capitalists are flattering the politicians with the myth that “they are needed” to (d) save their own profits and (e) get the taxpayers to take all the risk. Without that whole charade, if it wasn’t done, then most likely it wasn’t needed after all or some real capitalists would see the reward and take all the reward by doing it themselves.
Dude ... that all took place in 1806, not 2006.
“It’s not B.S. at all. California had done some very interesting economic studies over the years, and they determined that the jobs and economic activity at those ports simply weren’t worth the adverse impacts of all the congestion, diesel emissions, etc. In a large city, a major port facility is simply not the highest and best use of waterfront real estate at all.”
So the federal government had no business saving those ports for a state that didn’t want them anyway. Like I said, the post business would have gone to other west coast ports and Texas. Taxpayers all across the country had no stake in doing it FOR California. The imports would have come in, but to California’s benefit.
“That’s fine. Then be prepared for the day when Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas make a democratic choice to become Canadian provinces”
WOW The myths you weave. Transportation funding and secession are not anywhere on any same page, now or ever. And besides, Wyoming and the Dakotas are even less interested that you are in all the federal funds wasted on transportation projects that benefit them not.
Anecdotal example: an FFL in Idaho Falls had just acquired a new NFA firearm and wanted deliver it to an FFL in Pocatello. The Bannock Tribal police set up a roadblock in highway 19 and I-15 to prevent him from making the trip. They eventually relented and allowed him to pass. No explanation for the cause of that pissing match, but the tribal police did have jurisdiction on I-15 where it passes through the Shoshone-Bannock Reservation.
typical of your federal money is needed for everything projects
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2017/06/alameda-corridor-ponzi-scheme/
I was in Europe in the late ‘70s. There were places where the more capable cars were allowed to go a lot faster than the beater boxes. The deal in the article seems to be designed to extort money from citizens...
It’s even better than that.
Where I live they put these on a main freeway loop.
Evidently they put them up without checking the laws as the law only allows the speed to change every two miles (IIRC - been a long time since I’ve looked) but I know it’s not the every .25 miles they have the signs...
What’s really stupid about it is that they drop the speed during rush hour and raise it when the freeway is empty. When in reality - during those times, it drops and rises AUTOMATICALLY...
The reality is that studies have shown speed limits will set themselves based on conditions. That’s actually how they are determined. They survey the traffic speeds for a period of time and the limit is set near the 85th percentile - because 15% of drivers will always drive faster than the “limit” set by the other 85%. Which means left alone, traffic would self-regulate.
Speed limits set by government are for one thing: Revenue generation.
Especially in Georgia where the smaller jurisdictions don’t have real courts for traffic.
They have “kangaroo courts” where the arresting officer is the prosecutor.
My first experience with this was hilarious as I asked the judge if the “Prosecuting Officer” (his term when I asked where the prosecutor was) had a law degree and was a member of the Bar. He replied that the officer was an “Officer of the Court”. To which I replied no, your honor, the officer is a member of the Executive Branch - the bailiff is an Officer of the Court.
To which he replied: You can take your case to state court where a judge and prosecutor will hear it.
No thanks. If you do that, they can actually put you in jail for speeding.
I-77 in Virginia. The speed limit changes with conditions like fog.
I was hauled before a “Justice of the Peace” at two AM and fined for 40 mph in a 35 zone in a south Georgia town that had one red light. Luckily I had $50 cash on me..................I swear the Dukes of Hazzard must have been based on this town..............
Does Ludowici ring a bell?
Yep. Right near the Florida border...................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.