“The economy has changed, but the plan doesn’t need to,†said Sottile, referencing the city squares that Gen. James Oglethorpe laid out almost 300 years ago. “It survived the American Revolution, the Civil War and the 20th Century. And now it’s defining sustainability in the 21st Century.â€
Transshipment — moving goods from bigger vessels to smaller ones on the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal — might mean that much of the planned East Coast harbor dredging is unnecessary.
“If some spots edge toward transformation, that’s a bonus. Regionwide, metro drivers in 2025 would waste 128,000 fewer hours in traffic each day than they would if the referendum doesn’t pass, the ARC found.
But they’d still waste 1.8 million hours a day.”
I don’t know whether Georgia politicians are feeling the pressure from South Carolina’s growing resolve regarding funding or whether there are simply growing concerns about the federal funding process, but yesterday’s press conference with Governor Deal could be the first step in asking state taxpayers to fund the entire $652 million dredging of the Savannah River.
New construction is typically a driver of economic recoveries, but the combination of tighter credit because of the financial crisis and the massive overhang of existing homes — we built too many plus saw many others become distressed — could not be countered by any conventional, or politically acceptable, policy moves.
If you scroll through my recent posts, you can see links to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s 3-part series about the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP), a $650 million dredging that would make the Savannah River deeper to accommodate larger ships after the Panama Canal widening is complete.
Despite myriad doubts raised in that 3-part series about the economic benefits, the Savannah River’s depth after dredging, and the environmental impacts […]
The first subhead says a lot: “Deepened Georgia port will still be shallower than many of its rivals.”
