- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bernhard says he will finance loan for new Mississippi River Bridge in Baton Rouge
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:14 pm to GeauxPack81
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:14 pm to GeauxPack81
quote:
I seriously doubt voters would pass a tax to pay for something they already voted to pay for. I could be wrong though. I would have voted for that. I doubt it would have
But aren't we being asked to do that right now? Yes we are.
quote:
No doubt, and I was hesitant to bring them up. They have been relatively unwilling to dive into political issues in the past, so maybe that is a positive. Its never good for government to be overly supported by private
Bernhard has been extremely active in politics, he was the Democrat state chairman, and heavily involved with both Blanco and Holden, and he has explored running for governor twice.
Wampold has been far less active and has worked more behind the scenes than Bernhard has.
1
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:18 pm to BeepNode
quote:
The "new" bridge gets around 120k daily traffic but most of that is traffic coming from i-12 or to the core of BR. The old bridge gets around 20k daily traffic, and the sunshine bridge even less than that.
Does it matter where most of the 120k a day is coming from? If that many are crossing the "new" BR bridge then slap a toll of $1.50-$2.00 each way on that baby.
And when the Sunshine Bridge closed, I read that up to 25k people cross it each day. Having sat in detour traffic from that closure 3-4 times, I can guarantee you 100%, without a single doubt, that you could place a toll of the same amount each way on the Sunshine Bridge and people who cross it every single day wouldn't bat an eye to that. I can't imagine what those poor people who have to cross that bridge each day have been going through on a daily basis since the closure. I bet they wish there was another bridge nearby and they'd gladly pay for a third bridge.
Also, $1.50x120k a day = $180,000 a day
180,000 x 365 = $65,700,000 a year
$65,700,000 x 10 years = $657,000,000 just from the "new" BR bridge
25k Sunshine Bridge drivers paying $1.50 each would result in an additional $136,875,000 over 10 years.
Total just from those two bridges equals $793,875,000 over 10 years. Let's get the feds to pitch in the rest and suddenly a brand new bridge somewhere between Donaldsonville and Baton Rouge becomes a very, very real possibility.
I don't see why this is so hard.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:25 pm to Wayne Kenoff
sunshine used to be a $0.50 toll bridge, from when it opened in the 60's to about 15 years ago
Posted on 12/7/18 at 12:57 pm to doubleb
quote:
But aren't we being asked to do that right now? Yes we are
No. Same concept, sure, but a completely different list of projects.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 2:05 pm to GeauxPack81
quote:
No. Same concept, sure, but a completely different list of projects.
Wrong
Look at the list and most of the GL1 projects that were not completed are in MoveBR. Look at the list you posted and the MoveBRlist
Posted on 12/7/18 at 2:21 pm to doubleb
There are 3 projects that are the same, on a list of like 50...
$142 million out of over a billion
$142 million out of over a billion
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:05 pm to GeauxPack81
You're only looking at a list of 2018-2019 GL-1 projects that are funded, not the entire list of GL-1 projects. Only two of the bullet points on the MoveBR figure are not on the list of Green Light Plan projects (or were not at some point in time).
MoveBR is essentially the same bill of goods as the Green Light Plan extension that failed. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad plan, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a completely new package.
MoveBR is essentially the same bill of goods as the Green Light Plan extension that failed. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad plan, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a completely new package.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:10 pm to GeauxPack81
quote:WRONG
There are 3 projects that are the same, on a list of like 50...
Mc Hugh Road 8 million
(2) Hooper Road jobs 50 million
Jones Creek(modified) 19 million
(2) Old Hammond jobs 48.9 M
Perkins Road 26.2 Million
Nicholson to Brightside/Lee 21M
Pecue interchange 52 Million
Picardy/Perkins conn 40 MM
quote]
$142 million out of over a billion
[/quote]
WRONG 265.10 Million out of the 805.5Million dollars of proposed projects or 33%.
If you add in all the enhancements, sidewalks, traffic lights, bike paths, synchronization, etc. then it's 24% of the entire plan, but do we know if all the bike path, sidewalk, enhancements and synchronization projects in GL1 were all finished? We do not.
I'm seeing one out of four dollars of this tax going to complete GL1 projects.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:58 pm to CrazyTigerFan
quote:Yes, I am trying to combat the talk that this is just expediting projects that already have funding... A portion of the plan will go towards that, yes, but the vast majority of the projects on the list have no funding at all, and will otherwise not happen. Most of them were on GL2 that failed, but I understand a property tax failing. The people using the roads are far more than just property owners in BR. Sales tax is more indicative of those benefiting from the proposed projects.
You're only looking at a list of 2018-2019 GL-1 projects that are funded, not the entire list of GL-1 projects. Only two of the bullet points on the MoveBR figure are not on the list of Green Light Plan projects (or were not at some point in time).
MoveBR is essentially the same bill of goods as the Green Light Plan extension that failed. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad plan, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a completely new package.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:59 pm to The Mick
I don’t care how it gets done just call Gordon and get it done
Posted on 12/7/18 at 4:21 pm to Salamander_Wilson
A 36 minute ad for the tax. Even had 107.3 on board promoting it.
I’m not saying I’m against it. I’m just saying I’d like to hear the opposing side.
I’m not saying I’m against it. I’m just saying I’d like to hear the opposing side.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 4:40 pm to GeauxPack81
quote:
Yes, I am trying to combat the talk that this is just expediting projects that already have funding
I listed over 200 million dollars that the voters approved on the Green Light Plan. They are also in the plan to be voted on tomorrow the do called MoveBR.
I stated that they either over promised or there were cost overruns. You persuaded me to believe the rest of GL would be finished using the current tax we pay now, but it would be a slow process because it would have to be pay as you go.
Are you now saying that without new taxes these projects won't be finished?
You can't have it both ways sir.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 5:10 pm to doubleb
quote:
Are you now saying that without new taxes these projects won't be finished?
No, not at all. They will be finished, just on a pay as you go basis...
As I am believing, MoveBR is composed of over a billion worth of projects, including the $200 million+ that you laid out which were on GL1, but this would help secure bonding for them to be started on soon... However there are still $800 million worth of projects that won't be funded at all without this passing...
Where is the disconnect?
In you saying they over promised? Because that's not what happened. You just didn't know when you voted on GL1 that not all the projects were bonded. That's on you because the information was out there. At least for MoveBR you won't be surprised when the projects start coming on a pay as you go basis come year 5 or 10. Idk how long the projects will take.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 5:27 pm to GeauxPack81
So if I believe all you are posting is true, then we are going to have to pass a third tax to finish MoveBR in the next 15 to 20 years.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 10:20 pm to doubleb
You won't have to. But if traffic still sucks and we still need improvements, why would you not?
Posted on 12/7/18 at 10:26 pm to doubleb
Bernhard's "plan" if you want to call it that has nothing to do really with MoveBr. The bullshite concept that is "MoveBr" is just the continuation of atleat 30 years of putting bandaids on a failing BR public infrastructure. If not next year every other year there will be a tax measure just with a different verb or adjective in front of it on the ballot. You could pass 20 seperate taxes and it wont be finished in 50 years let alone 15 or 20.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 11:30 pm to CoastTrashTiger
Shouldn't we finish the first plan before adding more taxes to finish the first plan and start another.
It's been 13 years. GL is not done. 514 million dollars of work has been completed but they are estimating it will take about 200 million dollars in the new tax to finish them in an expedited manner.
How long will it take to complete the other 900 million dollars of work?
And will it take another tax to go it?
I'm guessing it would unless you want to drag it out for thirty years.
It's been 13 years. GL is not done. 514 million dollars of work has been completed but they are estimating it will take about 200 million dollars in the new tax to finish them in an expedited manner.
How long will it take to complete the other 900 million dollars of work?
And will it take another tax to go it?
I'm guessing it would unless you want to drag it out for thirty years.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 6:11 am to Salamander_Wilson
I would too if I had a billion laying around.
That could be 45 million a year in interest at 4.5%. That figure could be low with probably more because of compounding and giving the state the money upfront for construction and not starting payments until toll collections begin once construction is done. The loan could end up being 1.5 billion by the time income starts coming in 10 years with a 10 year construction goal.
As far as tolls, the state is going to need at least 90,000 cars a day at 2.50 just to be able to service the debt and cover some toll collection costs.
That could be 45 million a year in interest at 4.5%. That figure could be low with probably more because of compounding and giving the state the money upfront for construction and not starting payments until toll collections begin once construction is done. The loan could end up being 1.5 billion by the time income starts coming in 10 years with a 10 year construction goal.
As far as tolls, the state is going to need at least 90,000 cars a day at 2.50 just to be able to service the debt and cover some toll collection costs.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 7:01 am to Tarps99
Hopefully, the rain today will kill the taxes.
Posted on 12/8/18 at 8:20 am to Salamander_Wilson
FFS, if you go into business with Jim Bernhard prepare to have your pocket picked and your arse fricked.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News