wrote in :

some people should stay at the dock


I agree, but this business of just stealing all the boat tax money and
giving nothing (dredging) in return is getting really stupid.

The ICW in lots of SC is turning back into swampland from the neglect of
the Corp of Engineers and local bureaucrats. The only boats that will be
able to run the ICW in a few more years will be Florida airboats!



--
There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.

Gene Kearns wrote in message
...

Bush administration has never given any serious consideration to the
marine concerns of the Atlantic Coast.
http://www.boatus.com/gov/coastal_constit.htm

Give the guy a break. He doesn't even know where the Atlantic is, Gene.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in message
...

Bush administration has never given any serious consideration to the
marine concerns of the Atlantic Coast.
http://www.boatus.com/gov/coastal_constit.htm

Give the guy a break. He doesn't even know where the Atlantic is, Gene.

And he's incapable of "serious consideration".

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in message
...

Bush administration has never given any serious consideration to the
marine concerns of the Atlantic Coast.
http://www.boatus.com/gov/coastal_constit.htm

Give the guy a break. He doesn't even know where the Atlantic is, Gene.

And he's incapable of "serious consideration".


If someone would bring these issues to his attention, it would make for
great entertainment. Imagine Bush trying to pronounce (or even understand)
"intracoastal". His sitters would probably change the script and substitute
"in-betweenies", so he could get through it without poking himself in the
eye.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in message
...

Bush administration has never given any serious consideration to the
marine concerns of the Atlantic Coast.
http://www.boatus.com/gov/coastal_constit.htm

Give the guy a break. He doesn't even know where the Atlantic is, Gene.

And he's incapable of "serious consideration".


If someone would bring these issues to his attention, it would make for
great entertainment. Imagine Bush trying to pronounce (or even understand)
"intracoastal". His sitters would probably change the script and substitute
"in-betweenies", so he could get through it without poking himself in the
eye.

Condi and Rove are looking quite haggard these days. He's in the
limelight, and thus needs constant tutoring in order to actually sound
like a capable president!

Gene wrote:
snipped
Besides, using the ICW for hauling freight would be SAVING fuel. It
costs about $.10 on the dollar to ship goods via barge as opposed to
tractor-trailer.

That's interesting! I wouldn't have thought there would be much
difference. Why the big savings?

Nonsense. Commercial users already pay a fuel tax designated to both
maintain and improve the existing facility. This money is held in the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Federal Law requires that nearly all of
the ICW be maintained at a depth of 12 feet (with a minimum depth
anywhere of at least 7 feet).

We have the need and we have the means, the money is already set aside
to accomplish the task. If those currently in charge weren't asleep at
the wheel, this important task would be well underway.

Yep!
--

It's ton cheaper by rail too.

Trouble is that the infrastructure to do either doesn't exist. When
gas was cheap shipping in the US all moved towards tractor trailers.
They are more convenient, they can go straight to many of the final
delivery points. Small rail and boat terminals dried up and closed
down. So now there are not any terminal points for a train or boat to
unload and load cargo except at huge ports. Gone are the days when
freight trains and boats dropped and picked up cargo at small cities
across the country.

basskisser wrote:
Gene wrote:
snipped
Besides, using the ICW for hauling freight would be SAVING fuel. It
costs about $.10 on the dollar to ship goods via barge as opposed to
tractor-trailer.

That's interesting! I wouldn't have thought there would be much
difference. Why the big savings?

Nonsense. Commercial users already pay a fuel tax designated to both
maintain and improve the existing facility. This money is held in the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Federal Law requires that nearly all of
the ICW be maintained at a depth of 12 feet (with a minimum depth
anywhere of at least 7 feet).

We have the need and we have the means, the money is already set aside
to accomplish the task. If those currently in charge weren't asleep at
the wheel, this important task would be well underway.

Yep!
--

jamesgangnc wrote:
It's ton cheaper by rail too.

Trouble is that the infrastructure to do either doesn't exist. When
gas was cheap shipping in the US all moved towards tractor trailers.
They are more convenient, they can go straight to many of the final
delivery points. Small rail and boat terminals dried up and closed
down. So now there are not any terminal points for a train or boat to
unload and load cargo except at huge ports. Gone are the days when
freight trains and boats dropped and picked up cargo at small cities
across the country.

Perhaps it will be the wave of the future, once more! My wife's dad has
lived in the S.F. bay area since he was old enough to remember, and for
ten years he was a merchant marine. After being there a year and seeing
all of the old docks along the Embarcadero, I asked him about them, and
he said those small docks were always full in his day, and that you had
to be careful on the bay to not get ran over by a barge!

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:51:45 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote:


Boaters don't really get much respect from Democrats either. That is
particularly true of folks in "big gas guzzler" who want the channel
dredged. They say we should all buy kayaks.

I've never heard that, can you show me where this has been said?

Look at any dredging project that was stopped "for environmental
reasons" or to save the manatee. Maybe that doesn't happen some places
but it is very common.

What you suggest is like saying there is a movement to stop paving
roads because people with large SUVs use them. I've never heard
anybody propose that, either.

They take money from road (gasoline) taxes to fund public
transportation all the time.

Apples and oranges.