- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 8:16 am to Ignignot
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:16 am to Ignignot
This will literally never happen. The land near the river is WAY too valuable to any refinery or distribution company that owns/could own it.
Yes yes eminent domain blah blah. But the value of this land is unreal because of dock access.
Yes yes eminent domain blah blah. But the value of this land is unreal because of dock access.
1
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:25 am to c on z
quote:
plans for progress
Broome, plans for progress?
It doesn't add up.
They have a 72 million dollar pot of road buy back money that they use as a slush fund for pet projects.
They currently have seven projects in the GL plan that they haven't finished because they ran out of money.
What makes you think giving Fred Raiford more money for synchronization is going to work this time when he couldn't get it to work last time?
And any plan we do is pointless unless there is a regional plan. We know if something happens on the bridge it all goes to crap and if that's not addressed it can't get a whole lot better.
There are some good, local projects in the plan, but there are too many grandiose projects and too much undefined money to suit me, but you know the politicians love it.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:25 am to Kingpenm3
quote:
Is there are consensus of where this new bridge would be located?
WBR did a study, and it concluded that the bridge should be in WBR... Iberville did a study, and it concluded that the bridge should be in Iberville.
So no, there will be political arguing when it comes time for it, but it should be in WBR. If it is too far south, then people won't use it.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:27 am to GeauxPack81
Compromise.
Put west bound in WBR and east bound in Iberville.
Put west bound in WBR and east bound in Iberville.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:28 am to doubleb
quote:
They currently have seven projects in the GL plan that they haven't finished because they ran out of money.
No, they have 7 projects in the GL plan that was not covered by the bond financing. They are now on a pay as you receive the funds plan. This was always known, and it was always going to happen. It would happen under MoveBR too.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:31 am to lnomm34
quote:
Imagine the traffic for decades and decades if we don’t build another crossing over the frickin River.
I was going to post this exact thought.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:33 am to Salamander_Wilson
Just build a tunnel instead.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:34 am to Salamander_Wilson
I have COMPLETE faith that our elected officials will take advantage of this and deliver a successful alternative route in a very timely manner.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:36 am to GeauxPack81
quote:Does the Picou entrance/exit ramps fall under this?
No, they have 7 projects in the GL plan that was not covered by the bond financing. They are now on a pay as you receive the funds plan.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:39 am to Seeing Grey
quote:
Not saying BR shouldn't do it, however, should be fully aware there's close to 0% Bernhard doesn't significantly benefit from this.
what planet do you live on?
do you think investors should risk their money for free?
do you think engineers should design the bridge for free?
do you think contractors should build the bridge for free?
how the frick so you think road work gets done now?
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:40 am to FLObserver
not a response to you FL.
i hope Bernhard does make money. However, I would also hope that DOTD would make this a competitive process in some way. However, for a project of this size, DOTD normally makes these Design / Builds. IE DOTD can select the "best option", not the cheapest. While i love the potential to NOT be locked into Public Bid Law (IE the cheapest bid), I also know that the "selection process" becomes more subjective, which means more political.
The real way the financer will make money in a scenario like this is through buying/selling the property now that the highway/bridge intends to run through. Tolls are only a part of this. If you are curious as to what I mean, look into Billy Nungesser ane the Port of South Louisiana.
i hope Bernhard does make money. However, I would also hope that DOTD would make this a competitive process in some way. However, for a project of this size, DOTD normally makes these Design / Builds. IE DOTD can select the "best option", not the cheapest. While i love the potential to NOT be locked into Public Bid Law (IE the cheapest bid), I also know that the "selection process" becomes more subjective, which means more political.
The real way the financer will make money in a scenario like this is through buying/selling the property now that the highway/bridge intends to run through. Tolls are only a part of this. If you are curious as to what I mean, look into Billy Nungesser ane the Port of South Louisiana.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:43 am to DaBeerz
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/8/25 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:55 am to sec13rowBBseat28
quote:
Does the Picou entrance/exit ramps fall under this?
Yes. It is under the green light plan on a "Pay as you go" basis, meaning it will take forever to complete.
It is also under the MoveBR plan. It is actually the largest project in the MoveBR plan. It would receive immediate funding, and will be completed much quicker. It is a $52 Million project to add the interchanges and to 4 lane Pecue in both directions. It is also in the MoveBR plan to 4 lane perkins from Highland to Seigen, which will be desperately needed after the Pecue interchange is built and you have thousands of cars exiting the interstate and turning onto a road with 1 lane in each direction.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:55 am to doubleb
quote:
Put west bound in WBR and east bound in Iberville.
Sweet. The bridge is going to have a beautiful view of Williams Petroleum, Taminco, Syngenta, etc.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 8:59 am to GeauxPack81
quote:I was going to vote no. You may have just changed my mind.
Yes. It is under the green light plan
Posted on 12/7/18 at 9:00 am to GeauxPack81
I would recommend everyone go look at the projects under MoveBR. I would be surprised if none of the projects would effect your life.
For me, the College Drive improvements, Lee Drive improvements, and the potential for a Seyburn cut through from Highland to Burbank. When those are done, I would estimate I would get home probably 5 minutes faster every day... To me, that is worth the $50 a year I may pay in additional sales tax. And I don't even think it would be that high, as the sales tax doesn't even apply to groceries.
For me, the College Drive improvements, Lee Drive improvements, and the potential for a Seyburn cut through from Highland to Burbank. When those are done, I would estimate I would get home probably 5 minutes faster every day... To me, that is worth the $50 a year I may pay in additional sales tax. And I don't even think it would be that high, as the sales tax doesn't even apply to groceries.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 9:02 am to GeauxPack81
quote:
No, they have 7 projects in the GL plan that was not covered by the bond financing. They are now on a pay as you receive the funds plan. This was always known, and it was always going to happen. It would happen under MoveBR too
Initially bonds were sold to provide cash to do planning and construction correct? The bonds are backed by the sales tax voters approved.
Your story doesn't add up. They either over promised of the other projects exceeded the initial budgets. Sales taxes collected go to paying off the bonds that were sold previously. They aren't being set aside as part of a pay as you go plan. If they were you could sell more bonds noe and finish the program and pay back the bond holders with incoming sales taxes.
You aren't making sense.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 9:09 am to doubleb
quote:
Initially bonds were sold to provide cash to do planning and construction correct? The bonds are backed by the sales tax voters approved.
Correct, but it was not fully funded by the bonds, only partially. For example, MoveBR is only going to be 40% funded by bonds, to expedite the urgently needed projects. The remaining 60% will be on a pay-as-you-go.
quote:
They aren't being set aside as part of a pay as you go plan. If they were you could sell more bonds noe and finish the program and pay back the bond holders with incoming sales taxes.
Yes they are... I would agree with you, but it would also mean more interest costs and a corresponding higher sales tax. BR voters probably aren't going to pass a half cent sales tax, they definitely would not pass a full cent or whatever would be needed to make up the additional costs.
This post was edited on 12/7/18 at 9:11 am
Posted on 12/7/18 at 9:12 am to GeauxPack81
quote:
Yes. It is under the green light plan on a "Pay as you go" basis, meaning it will take forever to complete.
Yes, it was included in Green Light in 2005 but they ran out of money.
Voting no on MoveBR won't change that.
quote:
MoveBR plan. It is actually the largest project in the MoveBR plan. It would receive immediate funding, and will be completed much quicker
Yes, we are paying a half cent tax right now to help fund this project that was started and stopped. There are no guarantees that it would go first although it should.
And its the biggest project on the list becsuse they split up Airline Hwy, and Old Hammond Hwy.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 9:20 am to doubleb
quote:
Yes, it was included in Green Light in 2005 but they ran out of money.
They ran out of bond money, but that was not one of the projects under the bonded funds. Saying they "ran out of money" makes it sound like all these projects were mismanaged, when they really weren't. And also its important to note that the entire MoveBR program will be managed by a 3rd party private firm. If I am not mistaken, I believe Green Light was the same way, maybe CSRS?
Pecue interchange will be bonded under MoveBR. I can't say for certain it would be first, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't be one of the first projects if they have the bond money. They aren't going to just sit on it. From the Business Report:
quote:
Raiford says the city-parish is pursuing bonds because the road projects are massive. For instance, the proposed Pecue Lane expansion and I-10 interchange alone costs $50 million. If MovEBR were pay-as-you-go, generating $46 million a year, it could take one whole year to fund just one project.
But it also says:
quote:
The Broome administration expects to bond about 40% of the MovEBR projects, or about $376 million, at an estimated 5% interest rate—though that rate may be lower.
“It’s a very conservative approach,” says Gordon King of Government Consultants Inc., which advises the parish.
The remaining 60% of projects, amounting to $607 million, will be pay-as-you-go, meaning they will be funded as the annual tax collections are received.
This post was edited on 12/7/18 at 9:24 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News