Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jim Jones
ParticipantJust an update on the toll road down here in the South Bay. They say they get 30,000 vehicles a day I find that number to be on the high side.
It looks like toll are about to go up also. I am for bailing this one out as it should have never been a toll road in the first place. They developers should have been forced by the city to kick in if they wanted to build in the area.
Tollway prices to increase next week
30,000 vehicles use South Bay roadway
By Steve Schmidt (Contact) Union-Tribune Staff Writer2:00 a.m. January 13, 2009
The cost of driving the South Bay Expressway, the four-lane tollway that debuted in late 2007, will increase by as much as 75 cents starting late next week.
South Bay Expressway Ltd. Partnership, the private company that manages the north-south road, announced yesterday that it would boost tolls effective Jan. 24.
“Obviously, no one likes it when prices go up,” said Greg Hulsizer, company chief executive officer. He said the increases are needed to cover additional operating costs, including recent increases in property taxes, water bills and what the California Highway Patrol charges to patrol the roadway.
Tolls for cash-paying customers will increase 50 to 75 cents, to a range of $2.50 to $4.50 per trip, depending on length. The highway runs from Spring Valley to Otay Mesa.
Many motorists using FasTrak, an electronic tolling device, will pay 25 to 50 cents more than they do now, with a range of $2 to $3.85 per trip. FasTrak rides between Birch Road and East H Street in Chula Vista will continue to cost 75 cents.
Hulsizer said just under 30,000 vehicles travel at least part of the 10-mile roadway each weekday, easing congestion on Interstate 805 and other roads.
He said his company recently informed local and state agencies, including the city of Chula Vista, about the toll increases. He said no major objections were raised.
As part of its 35-year contract with the state, the company can periodically raise rates to cover the cost of managing and maintaining the tollway.
Hulsizer said the increases are unrelated to the financial problems facing the partnership’s parent company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, one of the world’s largest toll road operators.
According to Australian media reports, the value of Macquarie’s global toll road portfolio has plunged in recent months, partly due to a drop traffic volume.
ParticipantJust an update on the toll road down here in the South Bay. They say they get 30,000 vehicles a day I find that number to be on the high side.
It looks like toll are about to go up also. I am for bailing this one out as it should have never been a toll road in the first place. They developers should have been forced by the city to kick in if they wanted to build in the area.
Tollway prices to increase next week
30,000 vehicles use South Bay roadway
By Steve Schmidt (Contact) Union-Tribune Staff Writer2:00 a.m. January 13, 2009
The cost of driving the South Bay Expressway, the four-lane tollway that debuted in late 2007, will increase by as much as 75 cents starting late next week.
South Bay Expressway Ltd. Partnership, the private company that manages the north-south road, announced yesterday that it would boost tolls effective Jan. 24.
“Obviously, no one likes it when prices go up,” said Greg Hulsizer, company chief executive officer. He said the increases are needed to cover additional operating costs, including recent increases in property taxes, water bills and what the California Highway Patrol charges to patrol the roadway.
Tolls for cash-paying customers will increase 50 to 75 cents, to a range of $2.50 to $4.50 per trip, depending on length. The highway runs from Spring Valley to Otay Mesa.
Many motorists using FasTrak, an electronic tolling device, will pay 25 to 50 cents more than they do now, with a range of $2 to $3.85 per trip. FasTrak rides between Birch Road and East H Street in Chula Vista will continue to cost 75 cents.
Hulsizer said just under 30,000 vehicles travel at least part of the 10-mile roadway each weekday, easing congestion on Interstate 805 and other roads.
He said his company recently informed local and state agencies, including the city of Chula Vista, about the toll increases. He said no major objections were raised.
As part of its 35-year contract with the state, the company can periodically raise rates to cover the cost of managing and maintaining the tollway.
Hulsizer said the increases are unrelated to the financial problems facing the partnership’s parent company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, one of the world’s largest toll road operators.
According to Australian media reports, the value of Macquarie’s global toll road portfolio has plunged in recent months, partly due to a drop traffic volume.
ParticipantJust an update on the toll road down here in the South Bay. They say they get 30,000 vehicles a day I find that number to be on the high side.
It looks like toll are about to go up also. I am for bailing this one out as it should have never been a toll road in the first place. They developers should have been forced by the city to kick in if they wanted to build in the area.
Tollway prices to increase next week
30,000 vehicles use South Bay roadway
By Steve Schmidt (Contact) Union-Tribune Staff Writer2:00 a.m. January 13, 2009
The cost of driving the South Bay Expressway, the four-lane tollway that debuted in late 2007, will increase by as much as 75 cents starting late next week.
South Bay Expressway Ltd. Partnership, the private company that manages the north-south road, announced yesterday that it would boost tolls effective Jan. 24.
“Obviously, no one likes it when prices go up,” said Greg Hulsizer, company chief executive officer. He said the increases are needed to cover additional operating costs, including recent increases in property taxes, water bills and what the California Highway Patrol charges to patrol the roadway.
Tolls for cash-paying customers will increase 50 to 75 cents, to a range of $2.50 to $4.50 per trip, depending on length. The highway runs from Spring Valley to Otay Mesa.
Many motorists using FasTrak, an electronic tolling device, will pay 25 to 50 cents more than they do now, with a range of $2 to $3.85 per trip. FasTrak rides between Birch Road and East H Street in Chula Vista will continue to cost 75 cents.
Hulsizer said just under 30,000 vehicles travel at least part of the 10-mile roadway each weekday, easing congestion on Interstate 805 and other roads.
He said his company recently informed local and state agencies, including the city of Chula Vista, about the toll increases. He said no major objections were raised.
As part of its 35-year contract with the state, the company can periodically raise rates to cover the cost of managing and maintaining the tollway.
Hulsizer said the increases are unrelated to the financial problems facing the partnership’s parent company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, one of the world’s largest toll road operators.
According to Australian media reports, the value of Macquarie’s global toll road portfolio has plunged in recent months, partly due to a drop traffic volume.
ParticipantJust an update on the toll road down here in the South Bay. They say they get 30,000 vehicles a day I find that number to be on the high side.
It looks like toll are about to go up also. I am for bailing this one out as it should have never been a toll road in the first place. They developers should have been forced by the city to kick in if they wanted to build in the area.
Tollway prices to increase next week
30,000 vehicles use South Bay roadway
By Steve Schmidt (Contact) Union-Tribune Staff Writer2:00 a.m. January 13, 2009
The cost of driving the South Bay Expressway, the four-lane tollway that debuted in late 2007, will increase by as much as 75 cents starting late next week.
South Bay Expressway Ltd. Partnership, the private company that manages the north-south road, announced yesterday that it would boost tolls effective Jan. 24.
“Obviously, no one likes it when prices go up,” said Greg Hulsizer, company chief executive officer. He said the increases are needed to cover additional operating costs, including recent increases in property taxes, water bills and what the California Highway Patrol charges to patrol the roadway.
Tolls for cash-paying customers will increase 50 to 75 cents, to a range of $2.50 to $4.50 per trip, depending on length. The highway runs from Spring Valley to Otay Mesa.
Many motorists using FasTrak, an electronic tolling device, will pay 25 to 50 cents more than they do now, with a range of $2 to $3.85 per trip. FasTrak rides between Birch Road and East H Street in Chula Vista will continue to cost 75 cents.
Hulsizer said just under 30,000 vehicles travel at least part of the 10-mile roadway each weekday, easing congestion on Interstate 805 and other roads.
He said his company recently informed local and state agencies, including the city of Chula Vista, about the toll increases. He said no major objections were raised.
As part of its 35-year contract with the state, the company can periodically raise rates to cover the cost of managing and maintaining the tollway.
Hulsizer said the increases are unrelated to the financial problems facing the partnership’s parent company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, one of the world’s largest toll road operators.
According to Australian media reports, the value of Macquarie’s global toll road portfolio has plunged in recent months, partly due to a drop traffic volume.
ParticipantJust an update on the toll road down here in the South Bay. They say they get 30,000 vehicles a day I find that number to be on the high side.
It looks like toll are about to go up also. I am for bailing this one out as it should have never been a toll road in the first place. They developers should have been forced by the city to kick in if they wanted to build in the area.
Tollway prices to increase next week
30,000 vehicles use South Bay roadway
By Steve Schmidt (Contact) Union-Tribune Staff Writer2:00 a.m. January 13, 2009
The cost of driving the South Bay Expressway, the four-lane tollway that debuted in late 2007, will increase by as much as 75 cents starting late next week.
South Bay Expressway Ltd. Partnership, the private company that manages the north-south road, announced yesterday that it would boost tolls effective Jan. 24.
“Obviously, no one likes it when prices go up,” said Greg Hulsizer, company chief executive officer. He said the increases are needed to cover additional operating costs, including recent increases in property taxes, water bills and what the California Highway Patrol charges to patrol the roadway.
Tolls for cash-paying customers will increase 50 to 75 cents, to a range of $2.50 to $4.50 per trip, depending on length. The highway runs from Spring Valley to Otay Mesa.
Many motorists using FasTrak, an electronic tolling device, will pay 25 to 50 cents more than they do now, with a range of $2 to $3.85 per trip. FasTrak rides between Birch Road and East H Street in Chula Vista will continue to cost 75 cents.
Hulsizer said just under 30,000 vehicles travel at least part of the 10-mile roadway each weekday, easing congestion on Interstate 805 and other roads.
He said his company recently informed local and state agencies, including the city of Chula Vista, about the toll increases. He said no major objections were raised.
As part of its 35-year contract with the state, the company can periodically raise rates to cover the cost of managing and maintaining the tollway.
Hulsizer said the increases are unrelated to the financial problems facing the partnership’s parent company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, one of the world’s largest toll road operators.
According to Australian media reports, the value of Macquarie’s global toll road portfolio has plunged in recent months, partly due to a drop traffic volume.
ParticipantThis post made my day.
While in the middle of a recession GM is still marketing almost 90% of their products to the 5% of people who can now secure a loan to purchase the vehicle.
This is why we should never bailout any of the big three in IMHO.
http://www.whatgreencar.com/news-item.php?Ford-Focus-ECOnetic-Green-Car-of-the-Year-08
A UK Ford Focus clean diesel which gets 50+ MPG this must be a joke.
The government here needs to stop distorting the highway fund tax base by charging higher rates for diesel then letting companies use the expense of purchasing diesel as a deduction. This keeps diesel artificially high for consumers forcing them to use only gasoline as a primary fuel.
If only common sense could be brought into the energy policy we could probably be 10% more efficient right out of the gate without changing a single thing.
ParticipantThis post made my day.
While in the middle of a recession GM is still marketing almost 90% of their products to the 5% of people who can now secure a loan to purchase the vehicle.
This is why we should never bailout any of the big three in IMHO.
http://www.whatgreencar.com/news-item.php?Ford-Focus-ECOnetic-Green-Car-of-the-Year-08
A UK Ford Focus clean diesel which gets 50+ MPG this must be a joke.
The government here needs to stop distorting the highway fund tax base by charging higher rates for diesel then letting companies use the expense of purchasing diesel as a deduction. This keeps diesel artificially high for consumers forcing them to use only gasoline as a primary fuel.
If only common sense could be brought into the energy policy we could probably be 10% more efficient right out of the gate without changing a single thing.
ParticipantThis post made my day.
While in the middle of a recession GM is still marketing almost 90% of their products to the 5% of people who can now secure a loan to purchase the vehicle.
This is why we should never bailout any of the big three in IMHO.
http://www.whatgreencar.com/news-item.php?Ford-Focus-ECOnetic-Green-Car-of-the-Year-08
A UK Ford Focus clean diesel which gets 50+ MPG this must be a joke.
The government here needs to stop distorting the highway fund tax base by charging higher rates for diesel then letting companies use the expense of purchasing diesel as a deduction. This keeps diesel artificially high for consumers forcing them to use only gasoline as a primary fuel.
If only common sense could be brought into the energy policy we could probably be 10% more efficient right out of the gate without changing a single thing.
ParticipantThis post made my day.
While in the middle of a recession GM is still marketing almost 90% of their products to the 5% of people who can now secure a loan to purchase the vehicle.
This is why we should never bailout any of the big three in IMHO.
http://www.whatgreencar.com/news-item.php?Ford-Focus-ECOnetic-Green-Car-of-the-Year-08
A UK Ford Focus clean diesel which gets 50+ MPG this must be a joke.
The government here needs to stop distorting the highway fund tax base by charging higher rates for diesel then letting companies use the expense of purchasing diesel as a deduction. This keeps diesel artificially high for consumers forcing them to use only gasoline as a primary fuel.
If only common sense could be brought into the energy policy we could probably be 10% more efficient right out of the gate without changing a single thing.
ParticipantThis post made my day.
While in the middle of a recession GM is still marketing almost 90% of their products to the 5% of people who can now secure a loan to purchase the vehicle.
This is why we should never bailout any of the big three in IMHO.
http://www.whatgreencar.com/news-item.php?Ford-Focus-ECOnetic-Green-Car-of-the-Year-08
A UK Ford Focus clean diesel which gets 50+ MPG this must be a joke.
The government here needs to stop distorting the highway fund tax base by charging higher rates for diesel then letting companies use the expense of purchasing diesel as a deduction. This keeps diesel artificially high for consumers forcing them to use only gasoline as a primary fuel.
If only common sense could be brought into the energy policy we could probably be 10% more efficient right out of the gate without changing a single thing.
ParticipantJust a question. Why are there not satellite TV customers in Fairbanks Ranch?
If its due to the HOA rules I suggest you reference the FCC website at this link. There is no legal way for an HOA to restrict your installation of the most common antennas on your property.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
(1) A “dish” antenna that is one meter (39.37″) or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on “masts” to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person’s ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.
Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? Can an antenna user be required to obtain prior approval before installing his antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission’s rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule.
ParticipantJust a question. Why are there not satellite TV customers in Fairbanks Ranch?
If its due to the HOA rules I suggest you reference the FCC website at this link. There is no legal way for an HOA to restrict your installation of the most common antennas on your property.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
(1) A “dish” antenna that is one meter (39.37″) or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on “masts” to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person’s ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.
Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? Can an antenna user be required to obtain prior approval before installing his antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission’s rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule.
ParticipantJust a question. Why are there not satellite TV customers in Fairbanks Ranch?
If its due to the HOA rules I suggest you reference the FCC website at this link. There is no legal way for an HOA to restrict your installation of the most common antennas on your property.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
(1) A “dish” antenna that is one meter (39.37″) or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on “masts” to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person’s ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.
Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? Can an antenna user be required to obtain prior approval before installing his antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission’s rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule.
ParticipantJust a question. Why are there not satellite TV customers in Fairbanks Ranch?
If its due to the HOA rules I suggest you reference the FCC website at this link. There is no legal way for an HOA to restrict your installation of the most common antennas on your property.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
(1) A “dish” antenna that is one meter (39.37″) or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on “masts” to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person’s ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.
Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? Can an antenna user be required to obtain prior approval before installing his antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission’s rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule.
-
AuthorPosts