Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an example of a bill passed with the best of intentions that may have significant unintended consequences.
The bill states that the highway shall not be built north of the protected corridor. But what if deviating even 20 feet north of the protected corridor was found to save money or avoid environmental impacts? Unfortunately, to do so is now illegal.
I wish they had added just a little bit of extra flexibility in the wording of the bill.
This is an example of a bill passed with the best of intentions that may have significant unintended consequences.
The bill states that the highway shall not be built north of the protected corridor. But what if deviating even 20 feet north of the protected corridor was found to save money or avoid environmental impacts? Unfortunately, to do so is now illegal.
I wish they had added just a little bit of extra flexibility in the wording of the bill.
Seems like an attempt to play hard ball with the Feds over the route selection when NC doesn't exactly hold many cards. Essentially telling them to build it where we want it or keep your Federal money.
Bit risky, seems to me. Especially as the Feds know we have a new Toll road that will see much less use w/o their money to extend it.
I should add that I'm not favoring the mussels over the homeowners, just concerned about the message this Bill sends especially in advance of a Fed decision. One of those feel good blusters that might blow up in our faces.
I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.
I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.
If by "further away" you mean "not right through the middle of the dang town", then yes, it'll be further away. But yes, it will be several miles further south than the route right through town, although I imagine Garner will still get a boost.
let's hope that common sense prevails and the logical route is taken which doesn't bulldoze throught the middle of the community. I find it hard to understand how these proposals get wrapped up in 'process' rather than adopting the best proposal. I am sure the Army Corps of Engineers have better things to do that compare illogical routes because the process says they must have two routes to compare.
I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.
The original route, the "orange" protected route, was conceived and laid out many years ago. It passes a few miles south of Garner.
This newly proposed "red" alternate route (proposed in fall of 2010) cuts right through the middle of Garner.
This bill says to not use the red alternate route. . . . . .if fact don't even waste a half million studying it.
Seems like an attempt to play hard ball with the Feds over the route selection when NC doesn't exactly hold many cards. Essentially telling them to build it where we want it or keep your Federal money.
Bit risky, seems to me. Especially as the Feds know we have a new Toll road that will see much less use w/o their money to extend it.
I should add that I'm not favoring the mussels over the homeowners, just concerned about the message this Bill sends especially in advance of a Fed decision. One of those feel good blusters that might blow up in our faces.
Frank
As long as the reference "the corridor" it should be no problem. The corridor that is reserved is at least twice as wide as the area they will actually disturb in construction.
Ah, I just realized this only passed the senate but has yet to go to the House.
FWIW, I think the Mayor of Garner could use some PR training. His quotes in the WRAL story make him look kind of narrow minded. I get that he thinks he is protecting his constituents, but he can do that and make it come across a whole lot better to the rest of the world if he thought a little longer before he opens his mouth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
