Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MACDRIVE, Jul 11, 2006.
Is this good or bad?
If you read the website in the article (nascocorridor.com) it explains that this article is entirely false.
Some more links:
It seems to me that there are two facets to this whole idea: First, the need; then, the process for financing and operation.
If you look at the US of 50 years ago, and compare our highway system then and now, it's obvious that the Interstate System was a Good Thing. (I've driven from central Texas to central Florida, pre-Interstate. Yuck! And Austin, Texas, to Wilmington, Delaware, in 1945 was even worse.) My own experiences of recent years cause me to believe that we need more capability for transportation of "just folks" as well as of material goods. Heck, compare the populations and business activity $$$ as well.
This deal is proposed to cope with the next 50 years of growth. That makes sense to me.
Financing? If a private consortium can put the funding together, it keeps the various parts of the project from being an added tax burden. It once was that the gasoline and diesel tax paid for highway construction, but that notion's been gone for almost thirty years. We're already in deep doo-doo as far as maintaining a high quality system with the addition of general fund monies.
Construction? The letting of bids and the inspection during construction must be to the highest standards. So far, with construction companies like H.B. Zachry showing interest, it wouldn't necessarily be difficult to achieve high quality.
Operation? Somebody's gotta do oversight about the cost to both Joe Sixpack and Mr. Trucker for using such a system of toll roads. A better job of auditing the books than at Enron...