MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Thursday, August 21, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 71.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby WestSideYuppie » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:38 pm

gargantua wrote:Industry argues that the heavier, wider, longer loads it can carry, the more profitable the enterprise is and the more likely it is that the jobs the activity provides will stay in the state.


Heavier trucks means fewer jobs, not more.
WestSideYuppie
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 4:25 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby snoqueen » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:41 pm

Actually, nothing in the original articles was complaining about the mining business overall, which might bring a few jobs to a poor area. The issues were about keeping people safe from environmental hazards (silicosis), keeping the water safe (the mines are mostly above the water table, and may or may not even affect the drinkability of the water), and the expense of building roads that can handle hundreds of heavy trucks per day in all seasons. Heavy truck damage to roads is incremental, not caused by one great big truck but by overall increased truck traffic over time.

And obviously the company wants to hire as few people as it can to do the job, while the townspeople want as many hires as possible. Why is this surprising?

I'd say those who are getting all in a snit about jobs that might not happen are doing so unnecessarily at this time. The people who live in the area want jobs that don't come along with nontrivial health problems and undrinkable water, which is not too much to ask, and the county can't afford a big highway-building expense even if a few more of its residents are working. Those few new truck drivers can't come up with the millions in public money it'll take to upgrade the rural roads -- be reasonable and think about the numbers.

Stories like this are about negotiation, the use of applied science (like hydrogeology), and about information-gathering, not suppressing information in order to bring about a predetermined resolution.

And I kinda have to laugh when I see these less-government types suddenly implying the county government ought to come up with enough money to build nice new roads for the sand company's trucks, without hitting the sand company up for its share. Less government is all of a sudden less of a good idea, eh?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11395
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Rich Schultz » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:56 pm

While the sand mines only use a few segments of the county roads on their way to the nearest state road, farmers use all the county roads to haul their crops, so this years drought will be a bonanza for the taxpayers!
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Cornbread » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:36 pm

gargantua wrote:Industry argues that the heavier, wider, longer loads it can carry, the more profitable the enterprise is and the more likely it is that the jobs the activity provides will stay in the state.

Do you have a source for this?
Oh, other than some paid leftist on a political leftist advocacy site like think progress?

State and local highway engineers and traffic officials are supposed to protect the infrastructure for everyone.

and they do not?

they often say "no" to excessively heavy/large loads,

I don't know how they can say "no" to "excessively heavy/large loads" as there are already load limits on the roads--when they were built, the soils, the road base and of course, the road's material and structure itself.

"Yes Mr. Organic Farmer, you can drive your 24 ton load of corn on this road. STOP!!! Halt Mr. Sand Driver, your 24 tons of sand is bad for this road!" :lol:

BTW as stated earlier by a very smart poster, bridges are the limiter of weight and size restrictions. That's why they are posted before the bridge--hint hint hint. I know, there's not much of a political agenda in that, so why bother with those facts.....
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Cornbread » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:42 pm

lukpac wrote:
snoqueen wrote:It also might be a good time to look into upgrading freight rail service to the area.


That's happening around Barron, where a line that has been out of service for some time is being rebuilt for frac sand hauling.

Rail is the most efficient land means of transporting things a distance from point a to point b. Water is the most efficient of all. Speaking of which, in the fall, all those dakota grain coming from the plains to the great lakes terminals, do those trucks weigh more? :D

But the problem with putting in a rail line is, while leftists want everyone else to use mass transit, they will file lawsuit after lawsuit in the leftist madison courts to prevent any progress in the economies of the northwoods. I guess they just want to keep the northwoods to themselves as their private retreat.........
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby snoqueen » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:48 am

While the sand mines only use a few segments of the county roads on their way to the nearest state road, farmers use all the county roads to haul their crops, so this years drought will be a bonanza for the taxpayers!


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because the counties in question aren't big agricultural areas -- they're sand country mostly. And how is a bad year for agriculture (what agriculture there is up in sand country) good for taxpayers?

In addition, checking a drought map I see the up-north areas aren't coded as being in a drought as of July. It starts just a little north of Dane County,

I do agree only a few segments of road are likely to be used for sand hauling, and if you read the original articles the county and the mining companies were in negotiation about the best routes to use. Still, upgrading a road for heavy truck traffic is costly, and where do you believe this money should be found?

It might even be that we agree on this question and just don't realize it. It's my opinion the best solution would be sharing the cost between the company, the county (insofar as it's got money to help), and the state with possible assistance from the feds using funds intended to aid local governments in meeting environmental standards. That way, everyone with an interest in the outcome puts something into the pot. You?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11395
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Cornbread » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:30 pm

WestSideYuppie wrote:Heavier trucks means fewer jobs, not more.


OK, I'm all ears.

How so?

(Btw, I don't expect an answer, but just want others, the readers here to see it).
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby snoqueen » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:37 pm

Cornbread wrote:
WestSideYuppie wrote:Heavier trucks means fewer jobs, not more.


OK, I'm all ears.

How so?

(Btw, I don't expect an answer, but just want others, the readers here to see it).



Good grief. This is what happens when I don't sign in right away and I see all my "ignore" accounts' postings.

If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has fifty small trucks that can carry one ton each, he needs fifty drivers to drive those trucks.

If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has ten big trucks that can carry five tons each, he needs ten drivers to drive those trucks.

See how that works?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11395
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Detritus » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:05 pm

snoqueen wrote:If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has fifty small trucks that can carry one ton each, he needs fifty drivers to drive those trucks.

If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has ten big trucks that can carry five tons each, he needs ten drivers to drive those trucks.

See how that works?

Now, don't you go pulling math on the poor guy--he's producing so much ear smoke already that I'm having trouble seeing his smileys.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby Cornbread » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:31 am

snoqueen wrote:Good grief. This is what happens when I don't sign in right away and I see all my "ignore" accounts' postings.

Admit it my corporate queen, you like to read me. ;)
I have no one on my ignore list as I don't discriminate against people and am indeed open to other points of view. I 'celebrate diversity'. Maybe ya'll lefties should try that in your new democrat party?

If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has fifty small trucks that can carry one ton each, he needs fifty drivers to drive those trucks.

If a man has 50 tons of sand to move, and he wants to move it all in one shift, and he has ten big trucks that can carry five tons each, he needs ten drivers to drive those trucks.

See how that works?


Got it. So then wouldn't 5,000 people with wheelbarrows moving that sand even create more jobs? According to your logic (which, logically, is valid), yes, all those people with wheelbarrows moving that sand down the road will create exponentially more jobs.

But at what cost? Using either, the 20 smaller trucks or the 5,000 people with wheelbarrows:

1. Increased labor costs
2. Decreased productivity
3. Customer unhappiness with the inefficiency in product delivery, which increases their costs.
4. More congestion and disruption on roads on the delivery route.

And what do all that translate into?
1. Significantly higher cost they have to charge for their product in terms of dollars charged to their customer.
2. Significantly higher costs incurred by the customer to 'take' the product (unload/process).
3. Significant time increase by the customer to get all the product they need in a certain amount of time.

So what do Nos. 1-3 translate into?
They'll buy their sand from someone else, thus your 50 truck sand manufacturing plant and delivery company will lose not only 50 'make work' jobs, but the local government will lose the tax base of those 50 jobs, not to mention tax revenue loss due to another company closing its doors and property taxes decreasing.

You really should keep me off your 'ignore' list corporate girl.
I'm trying to teach you things about the real world, the world outside of madison, that could help you.

and best yet, IT'S FREE!!!!! :D
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:37 am

Let's just say someone needs to read up on the depreciation schedule for certain classes of capital expenditures and then make an educated guess as to why the tax code was written the way it was, and how it shapes corporate decision-making.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11395
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby DCB » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:20 am

Many rural areas in Wisconsin have had to deal with a similar issue recently - hauling manure.

The large dairy farms generate literally tons of waste, or fertilizer, depending on how you look at it.

SB 410 helps improve the efficiently of applying manure. Specifically, it allows vehicles or vehicle combinations transporting manure to or from a farm to exceed weight limits by not more than 15 percent from September 1 to December 31 annually.

“During the fall of 2011 there was increased enforcement of road weight limits in certain parts of the state,” explained Paul Zimmerman, WFBF’s Executive Director of Governmental Relations. “Several farmers and custom manure haulers were cited for being overweight when transporting manure from the farm to the fields for application.”

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/UPDA ... 29513.html

It was resolved with bipartisan support!

No doubt this will produce greater wear and tear on the highways.
So the precedent is set: the local municipalities will have to handle the extra cost.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:16 pm

It'll be interesting watching the sand trucks getting stuck in soft spots on those old country roads next spring thaw. Some towing company is going to make out very well.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11395
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby jjoyce » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:22 pm

Cornbread wrote:Do you have a source for this?


Too funny.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: local control, taxpayers and frac sand hauling

Postby jjoyce » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:24 pm

Hardly. The road builders are going to make out.

It doesn't matter to them how they get paid, whether it's the trucking companies or the taxpayers. But I think we all know by now who gets paid when they get paid.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar