I will be posting about twice a week on one of Georgia’s most influential political blogs, but will obviously continuing doing what I’m doing here.
“It’s all a money grab,” said Tom Finkbiner, senior chairman of the Intermodal Transportation Institute at the University of Denver. “The competition becomes between ports and it goes to Washington and you have to justify why you are spending this money. So it becomes an excuse.”
If you’re interested in the ongoing debates, controversies, costs, and risks regarding dredging the Savannah River from 42′ to 47′, check out this interesting piece today by Curtis Tate of McClatchy Newspapers: As states seek funds for deeper ports, will ships come in?
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 editorial from the Charleston Post & Courier explores federal failings over the decades and the need for national strategies regarding dredging projects.
Click here to go to the news page that has multiple — and thorough — articles about yesterday’s authorization that the Savannah River channel be dredged to 47 feet, which is 5 feet deeper than it is now but a…
The AJC and Charleston Post & Courier headlines about today’s approval of Savannah River dredging focus on the one foot difference, which could reduce cargo by 800 containers per ship.
Here’s the entire press release this morning from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (with a couple of key issues in bold). I’ll have much more later. There’s sure to be much discussion about…
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 final installment of Dan Chapman’s 3-part, over 6,000-word look at the proposed dredging of the Savannah River channel begins like this: “Critics say a national strategy should govern the deepening of ports.” For all the study of the proposed…
The first subhead says a lot: “Deepened Georgia port will still be shallower than many of its rivals.”
Click here for part one, which talks about uncertainties regarding global shipping generally and Savannah specifically.
Regular readers of this blog and my columns already know the basic terrain of the issues laid out clearly in Corps of Engineers’ analyses: