http://rcnky.com/articles/2015/03/19/massie-no-more-bike-paths-trails-light-rail-highway-trust-fund
QuoteWhat would get the ax from funding from the Highway Trust Fund? Bike paths, sidewalks, mass transit. "Currently, gas tax revenue is diverted from the federal Highway Trust Fund for bike paths, sidewalks, mass transit, and other local projects,"Massie said in a news release. "But due to inflation and fuel efficiency improvements of today's vehicles, there is no longer enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to maintain our nation's critical highways and bridges while also funding local projects that have no federal nexus. By eliminating diversion of gas tax revenues, the DRIVE Act ensures that the Highway Trust Fund can fulfill its namesake duty — to fund highways, without an increase in the gas tax rate."
I would love to ask this individual how this road-focused money would address the massive gridlock that would result in massive cities that were built around public transportation systems, where it is infeasible to build enough road capacity to make up for the number of new cars needed when public transit stops.
Of course, I don't need to, because I know the answer: it wouldn't.
Sometimes transit spending is the only way to preserve existing road capacity (not "take cars off the road). Sometimes transit spending is road spending.
Something else missing: even taking away transit and bike path money (the latter is, in reality, a "rounding error" given HTF spending to begin with), the fund would still not be solvent.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 19, 2015, 10:00:03 PM
http://rcnky.com/articles/2015/03/19/massie-no-more-bike-paths-trails-light-rail-highway-trust-fund
QuoteWhat would get the ax from funding from the Highway Trust Fund? Bike paths, sidewalks, mass transit. "Currently, gas tax revenue is diverted from the federal Highway Trust Fund for bike paths, sidewalks, mass transit, and other local projects,"Massie said in a news release. "But due to inflation and fuel efficiency improvements of today's vehicles, there is no longer enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to maintain our nation's critical highways and bridges while also funding local projects that have no federal nexus. By eliminating diversion of gas tax revenues, the DRIVE Act ensures that the Highway Trust Fund can fulfill its namesake duty — to fund highways, without an increase in the gas tax rate."
I swear politicians are completely tone deaf on this issue, I just ignore them, they aren't serious about solving this problem.
Massie is the congresscritter from my district. When he comes up with absurd ideas like this, it's a miracle he keeps getting elected.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2015, 11:19:01 PM
I would love to ask this individual how this road-focused money would address the massive gridlock that would result in massive cities that were built around public transportation systems, where it is infeasible to build enough road capacity to make up for the number of new cars needed when public transit stops.
Of course, I don't need to, because I know the answer: it wouldn't.
Sometimes transit spending is the only way to preserve existing road capacity (not "take cars off the road). Sometimes transit spending is road spending.
The Highway Trust Fund isn't the only funding source out there. For example, state gas taxes (which have been increased in some states, even in ones with Republican-controlled legislatures, most recently South Dakota). Taking transit out of the HTF doesn't necessarily mean it won't get funded from other sources at reasonable levels.
That said, I don't agree that transit, or even sidewalks or bike paths (which can reduce conflicts between motor- and non-motor traffic) are always "diversions" that don't benefit gas-taxpayers. I like the idea of reducing HTF outflows to match Federal gas tax inflows (with states picking up more of the load on transportation funding), but I'm not crazy about how the Congressman would make the reduction.
This is really a simple set of questions.
Bikes? Are bikes a serious for of transportation or a recreational activity? The answer, 99% of the time, is a recreational activity? If you like bikes, fine. Freeload (using as an economic term, which is not judgmental at all) on the existing automotive infrastructure or hit up your LOCAL parks and recreation officials to fund a form of recreation you like.
Urban transit? How does this help the national economy? The answer, really, is, it doesn't. The idea that people using communal transit would all be driving and thus cause gridlock has a simple answer. Which is, so? The purpose of nationally funded roads are really two. To move people and goods from place to place. Highways do that. Simplified, right up to the outer edge of a cities beltway. Within it? Well, it is a lifestyle choice. All the NATIONAL economy needs from the city is truck or rail access to the port. (And, bluntly, ports can and should be refocused to less crowded cites with less communal transit "needs", and away from the northeast). Want to be among the minority of people that live in the urban core of an old big city (and among the even smaller minority of such people who actually contribute to, rather than live upon, the national economy) fine. Great. Enjoy. Lovely. Part of the LOCAL cost that you will (either via fares you pay, or local taxes you pay) cover the costs of your LOCAL need to reduce LOCAL gridlock in your LOCALITY. A local problem the locals should pay for. Meanwhile the national economy will be zooming by, using trucks and rail that mostly bypass your locality, and people will be moving, inter-regionally, via highways (and air) separate from you and your LOCAL lifestyle choice and problem.
Amtrak? First, is it a legitimate form of transportation? That answer is, not totally. For many it is a form of recreation. The Nostalgia Limited. For others, it is just an alternative to bus or air transport. Eliminate it and the free market will fill in its needs with new bus and plane routes. Leaving, more or less, the northeast corridor. Can we fairly say that roads and air cannot completely cover the personal transit needs there (remember that freight is not part of the question, as it is handled profitably by investor owned trains) ? Maybe? If the answer is yes and passenger trains are needed then is that a national or a local/regional problem? The easy answer is national. But that is wrong. It is a local/regional problem, of, and this is important, the wealthiest part of the country. It make no economic sense to transfer money from motorists elsewhere in the country to fund a solution to a local/regional problem in the wealthiest part of the country. More than enough local resources (taxes, fares) to cover it.
Leaving 100% of highway money for highways.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 08:46:52 AM
This is really a simple set of questions.
Bikes? Are bikes a serious for of transportation or a recreational activity?
Depends on where you are, and what you're doing. I'd say that in many rural and suburban settings, it's more recreational, but the more urban the setting gets, the less recreational it gets. That said, I'd like to see bike owners pay into the system as well with license plates for bicycles that need stickers every year.
QuoteUrban transit? How does this help the national economy?
Again, depends on where you are. In a sprawled-out city of moderate size in the Midwest, not much. It mainly serves those who do not have vehicles for whatever reason (poor, DUI, etc). In a city such as New York, it is absolutely vital to the economy.
QuoteAmtrak? First, is it a legitimate form of transportation?
Yes, it is, but the problem for Amtrak isn't the highways or airlines so much as it is itself. If Amtrak had better service, they'd pull in more passengers. They should also advertise themselves as TSA-checkpoint free when compared to the airlines. We did a great disservice many years ago when we limited trains to 79 mph. Thus, instead of investing in high-speed tracks, we (including the rail companies) fell behind in that aspect and made rail transportation highly unfavorable when compared to air transportation.
Now a better question should be, should fares be allowed to rise on these (public transport and Amtrak)?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 08:46:52 AM
This is really a simple set of questions.
Bikes? Are bikes a serious for of transportation or a recreational activity? The answer, 99% of the time, is a recreational activity?
For me, it is mostly practical transportation, not recreation.
Amtrak is a great form of transit for the east coast, not so much elsewhere though. An east coast bus ride is a pain in the ass because of the traffic.
Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2015, 09:42:00 AM
Yes, it is.
I really, outside the northeast as noted, question that. One GAO report said that the government could buy every passenger an air ticket and lose less money. How is, outside the northeast, Amtrak transportation? If I want to go from point A to point B, I will have the option of, at least, "legacy air" (American/US Air, United, Delta) which pretty much serve everywhere anyone would want to go; "new air" (Allegiant, Spirit, Southwest, etc) which cherry pick popular routes for less $$; Buses, again both the legacy universal service of Greyhound and the newer cherry pickers like Barron's and Peter Pan; or driving. All of which use infrastructure that is going to exist anyway. Or Amtrak, which almost always costs more, and has a ridiculous schedule (maybe once or twice a day, often in the middle of the night) which will take me not only more time than air, but generally more than driving, at least for a trip of less than one day. For more $$. All you have to do is lay Greyhound's map over Amtrak's and tell me what Amtrak does that Greyhound doesn't, understanding that Greyhound, et al, would fill in whatever tiny gaps might answer that question. Without raiding the highway fund.
QuoteIf Amtrak had better service, they'd pull in more passengers.
That is a general "railfan" argument. Doubtful. The argument breaks down into advocates of more frequent trips, which, since Amtrak loses money on every run, is dubious. And advocates of "high speed rail" which is somehow going to compete with the existing high speed air, despite air's faster speeds and flexibility (you can add a new flight to anywhere in a day, based on the Market's demands, high speed rail is tied to its special rails).
Quote
Now a better question should be, should fares be allowed to rise on these (public transport and Amtrak)?
Basic market economics says, yes. To a point where these things break even. In the case of Amtrak outside the northeast, that probably means go out of business. No loss.
My last experience with Greyhound was horrible. Just inexcusably bad. What the government needs to do is break up the near-monopoly that Greyhound has.
And I don't care about "market economics." At all. If we listened to the "free market" types 100% of the time, I'd be dead long ago.
AMTRAK has great potential to be good, but has so many problems that end up making it useless.
I took a Greyhound (or "Peter Pan" but same company) bus from Washington DC to Boston recently. I'd never do it again. I wish I had just paid the extra money for Amtrak.
Greyhound knows they can get away with it, because there isn't much competition. I don't think Megabus serves Denver, for instance.
Greyhound's Facebook page is full, full, full of complaints about buses being late for no apparent reason or not showing up at all. Nothing but complaints. It's like what happened to me in St. Louis, and how they inexplicably rerouted us through Dayton instead of going to Cincinnati like we were supposed to do.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 08:46:52 AMUrban transit? How does this help the national economy? The answer, really, is, it doesn't. The idea that people using communal transit would all be driving and thus cause gridlock has a simple answer. Which is, so? The purpose of nationally funded roads are really two. To move people and goods from place to place. Highways do that. Simplified, right up to the outer edge of a cities beltway. Within it? Well, it is a lifestyle choice. All the NATIONAL economy needs from the city is truck or rail access to the port. (And, bluntly, ports can and should be refocused to less crowded cites with less communal transit "needs", and away from the northeast). Want to be among the minority of people that live in the urban core of an old big city (and among the even smaller minority of such people who actually contribute to, rather than live upon, the national economy) fine. Great. Enjoy. Lovely. Part of the LOCAL cost that you will (either via fares you pay, or local taxes you pay) cover the costs of your LOCAL need to reduce LOCAL gridlock in your LOCALITY. A local problem the locals should pay for. Meanwhile the national economy will be zooming by, using trucks and rail that mostly bypass your locality, and people will be moving, inter-regionally, via highways (and air) separate from you and your LOCAL lifestyle choice and problem.
Here again we have this piddly little myth that always pops up, that transit systems only benefit some handful of people that live next to subway stops. In reality, all you have to do is be in a major metropolitan area when there is a public transportation strike, and you will see massive traffic backups throughout entire regions. What happens in the core does not stay in the core, but rather pours out of it in a massive wave of stopped traffic. And that's not a small minority but a very large number of Americans living urbanized areas are suddenly in it deep without transit.
I know this may seem implausible for those who do not live in these situations, but it hardly matters because there are millions and millions of us that do, and we have lots and lots of representation in Congress and we will always get our money. No politician of any party is safe when people can't get to work on time because their transit funding was removed.
My bus had to take a random detour to Baltimore to pick up even MORE people because their bus had left them there. I had hoped that taking the bus would be an excuse to see any new signage along I-95, I-84 and the Mass Pike. I was too annoyed to really enjoy doing THAT.
The #1 advantage that Amtrak has over Greyhound though is the availability of food on board and the ability to get up and walk to the dining car as a change of scenery.
And on the mass transit point, have you ever driven in DC? I tried leaving to head south at NOON yesterday so not even during rush hour and traffic was backed up, heading south on I-95 all the way to Fredericksburg. Now imagine what would happen if the Metro suddenly went away.
What bugs me is when a person's big complaint is that the Internet is slow on the bus or train. I'm not used to having Internet on buses or trains. Being LATE is a far more serious problem, especially when the bus is so late that it eats up your entire layover for the next bus.
It's also one of many reasons why I do not ever plan to travel on a commercial airliner. I've heard the stories.
This Congressman is almost trolling people who know the transportation funding mix. These scumbags love to keep people from knowing how government actually works.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
...all you have to do is be in a major metropolitan area when there is a public transportation strike, and you will see massive traffic backups throughout entire regions.
Substitute "snow" for "public transportation strike" and the same logic (sic) justifies taxpayers in San Diego paying to remove Boston's snow. As a national priority, not really. Some people choose to live where they are dependent on communal transit. Others where they are 200 miles from a legitimate hospital, others 20 miles from a store. All lifestyle choices and none, really, worthy of federal concern.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 21, 2015, 11:41:14 AM
What bugs me is when a person's big complaint is that the Internet is slow on the bus or train. I'm not used to having Internet on buses or trains. Being LATE is a far more serious problem, especially when the bus is so late that it eats up your entire layover for the next bus.
It's also one of many reasons why I do not ever plan to travel on a commercial airliner. I've heard the stories.
What stories?
Late trains, congested roads...all forms of transportation can include reasons why someone is late.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 21, 2015, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on March 21, 2015, 11:41:14 AM
What bugs me is when a person's big complaint is that the Internet is slow on the bus or train. I'm not used to having Internet on buses or trains. Being LATE is a far more serious problem, especially when the bus is so late that it eats up your entire layover for the next bus.
It's also one of many reasons why I do not ever plan to travel on a commercial airliner. I've heard the stories.
What stories?
Stories like this one from a guy in Alabama whose entire vacation was ruined by Delta...
http://www.kjernigan.com/my-letter-to-delta-airlines-ruined-vacation
QuoteUrban transit? How does this help the national economy? The answer, really, is, it doesn't. The idea that people using communal transit would all be driving and thus cause gridlock has a simple answer. Which is, so? The purpose of nationally funded roads are really two. To move people and goods from place to place. Highways do that. Simplified, right up to the outer edge of a cities beltway. Within it? Well, it is a lifestyle choice. All the NATIONAL economy needs from the city is truck or rail access to the port. (And, bluntly, ports can and should be refocused to less crowded cites with less communal transit "needs", and away from the northeast). Want to be among the minority of people that live in the urban core of an old big city (and among the even smaller minority of such people who actually contribute to, rather than live upon, the national economy) fine. Great. Enjoy. Lovely. Part of the LOCAL cost that you will (either via fares you pay, or local taxes you pay) cover the costs of your LOCAL need to reduce LOCAL gridlock in your LOCALITY. A local problem the locals should pay for. Meanwhile the national economy will be zooming by, using trucks and rail that mostly bypass your locality, and people will be moving, inter-regionally, via highways (and air) separate from you and your LOCAL lifestyle choice and problem.
Until you realize it's not 1950 anymore and most of this country's wealth comes from provision and export of services, not manufactured goods.
I get some of your point, but the local portions of cities contribute to the national economy just as much (moreso, actually) as agricultural areas. They do so via the internet, not via physical infrastructure.
Rural areas and urban areas both have very important roles in this country, and the directing of national funds should work to benefit both of those types of areas. In cities, that may very well mean directing national funds to transit. In rural areas, it probably shouldn't mean directing national funds to transit. People in cities shouldn't be offended when the country invests money in freeways and car-centered physical infrastructure in rural areas, just as people in rural areas shouldn't be offended when the country invests money in transit-oriented types of development in urban areas.
Even in urban areas, I'm not sure that it's totally applicable. Parts of cities, where there is manufacturing and there are ports, do need great highway connections so trucks can get to the ports. Freight access is only part of the equation, though. The people that work at the ports have to get to work or the ports can't function. It's probably cheaper from a "moving freight" standpoint to have some chunk of those folks commute via a useful transit system instead of gridlocking the freeways that need to be used by trucks to distribute products.
To put it simply, a port with wide open freeways that trucks can use and a stellar transit system that shuttles employees in and out is going to be more competitive and contribute more to the national economy and be more able to grow than a port where a limited number of trucks can enter because they have to fight gridlock to get to the port. If trucks can enter more quickly, the container ship fills more quickly, lessening the amount of time it sits idle, maximizing exports. If you can get private cars off your freeway network to some extent, that's more capacity for freight and manufactured goods. In an ideal world from a freight exporting perspective (not that I would actually want this- there's a balance), your freeway network would be truck only, allowing trucks to whiz in and out of ports, maximizing exports, making the port a more attractive place to do business, and growing the national economy.
On your point about re-locating ports, that seems nice in the short run, but doesn't really work in the long run. A good port is going to employ a lot of people. Those people are going to want to live near the port so they aren't wasting their lives commuting (and land near a port in the middle of nowhere probably isn't going to be worth very much at first, so that's added incentive. If I were a developer I'd be all over that. "Brand new, inexpensive nice house right by work!"). Those people will want services. People will have to move in to provide services that support the people that work at the port. Then a city grows. A rural port is pretty much impossible over the long run, especially since a rural port will be so efficient upon opening it will immediately become very wealthy and (assuming the owners are capitalists) grow quite quickly. Then you're dealing with the same situation as in the northeast, where your truck traffic is blocked from the port by a city, but since you don't believe in transit, all those people are still driving to work and clogging up the freeway into the port.
The only way to sustain a rural port where everybody comes in by car would be to force people not to live near it and then build a parallel freeway network for cars to use, but that seems more big-governmenty than giving people the option to go to work via a transit system. If you built a parallel freeway network you'd probably just be moving the bottleneck upstream anyway, unless the city where all the employees live were coming from a completely different direction than all the freight, but that's getting into some Soviet-level central planning.
When it comes to transportation infrastructure in this country, ALL OF IT is underinvested. ALL OF IT.
In particular, investment in rail transportation and urban public transportation of all types is laughably bad. Simply put, air transportation and highway investment were an easier sell in the past 70 years, and those areas got the bulk of investment.
Rail investment has been largely left up to the railroad companies, and they make investments or not depending on their bottom line. Amtrak hasn't had the investments necessary to separate itself from freight rail, and that's made it a 2nd class citizen.
I would be a fantastic candidate for high-speed rail transportation - almost all of my travel is under 500 miles to and from areas already popular with other travelers. However, the reliance on freight infrastructure means rail transportation is instead slow and inconvenient.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
...all you have to do is be in a major metropolitan area when there is a public transportation strike, and you will see massive traffic backups throughout entire regions.
Substitute "snow" for "public transportation strike" and the same logic (sic) justifies taxpayers in San Diego paying to remove Boston's snow. As a national priority, not really. Some people choose to live where they are dependent on communal transit. Others where they are 200 miles from a legitimate hospital, others 20 miles from a store. All lifestyle choices and none, really, worthy of federal concern.
Simple: If Boston's snow isn't adequately removed and the Boston public transit system remains compromised then it will result in increased traffic and congestion on interstate highways, particularly I-93 and I-95. Those highways exist not to serve the Boston metro area but to facilitate the free flow of goods in interstate commerce. The United States Constitution provides the federal government with the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce. When interstate commerce is compromised, the federal government should step in and do what it can. Removing Boston's snow and getting the T up and running again results in less congestion and this is obviously the least restrictive means of achieving this outcome.
So yes, your tax dollars SHOULD go to that.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
...all you have to do is be in a major metropolitan area when there is a public transportation strike, and you will see massive traffic backups throughout entire regions.
Substitute "snow" for "public transportation strike" and the same logic (sic) justifies taxpayers in San Diego paying to remove Boston's snow. As a national priority, not really. Some people choose to live where they are dependent on communal transit. Others where they are 200 miles from a legitimate hospital, others 20 miles from a store. All lifestyle choices and none, really, worthy of federal concern.
It's not my problem that the West is arid, that New Orleans gets hit by hurricanes, that Appalachia lacked electricity, or that children in Chicago lack adequate nutrition. And yet we pool our money to target all of these "not worthy of Federal concern" "lifestyle choice" issues.
You might prefer fifty individual countries, but that ain't the place you live.
(We'll probably get federal aid for the snow this year, and I just want to say thank you for your part.)
Not sure if this is related or not, but it's been mentioned elsewhere about the hit Kentucky's Road Fund is taking because of the drop in the state gas tax. Our gas tax is tied to the wholesale price of gas and is set quarterly. The tax went down about a nickel on Jan. 1 based on the wholesale price on Oct. 1, and is slated to go down again April 1 because the wholesale price was lower on Jan. 1 than it was on Oct. 1. The state legislature is considering a bill to set a statutory floor at the Jan. 1 rate because the Road Fund is slated to take another huge hit the first of next month. About half of those revenues go to local governments to maintain city streets and county roads.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm generally in support of the philosophy of Americans for Prosperity. But AFP is running ads against enacting a statutory floor on the gas tax, calling it a tax hike. I have to disagree with them on this issue. I didn't see the extra nickel in my pocket when the tax went down in January. In fact, prices started going back up at the pump. I guess AFP forgot about Article 1, Section 8, which designates roads as a proper governmental expenditure dating back to the founding of our republic.
Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road. Which is why the interstate commerce and defense clauses have been relied on for constitutional authority to spend federal money on roads.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.
Which roads don't carry the post?
My folks live down a rural dead end road and have a PO Box.
So that one.
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2015, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.
Which roads don't carry the post?
There are a few, like Nature Boy's example, but probably not very many. And I'd say that UPS or FedEx would probably deliver to that address, so that probably qualifies as "post." I have a PO box as well and I live on a road that has rural delivery.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2015, 09:42:00 AM
QuoteIf Amtrak had better service, they'd pull in more passengers.
That is a general "railfan" argument. Doubtful. The argument breaks down into advocates of more frequent trips, which, since Amtrak loses money on every run, is dubious. And advocates of "high speed rail" which is somehow going to compete with the existing high speed air, despite air's faster speeds and flexibility (you can add a new flight to anywhere in a day, based on the Market's demands, high speed rail is tied to its special rails).
When considering cost per run, fixed and variable costs must be considered. When adding an additional run, fixed costs in total do not change, but fixed costs per run decrease. If Amtrak is not covering even its variable costs, which is at least somewhat likely, then, yes, adding another run would only make the loss worse. However, if Amtrak is recovering variable costs and a portion of fixed costs per run, then each additional run added would result in less of a loss overall. I know that Amtrak, like you said, makes a profit in the northeast. I think this all boils down to the fundamental problem with Amtrak: Amtrak only owns the rails in the Northeast and Keystone corridors last time I checked.
This causes several problems:
- Amtrak has to pay the "host railroad" that owns the tracks for "trackage rights", basically a lease fee
- Amtrak trains are subject to scheduling and priority of the host railroad.
- There are some places where there simply is not the additional capacity to add more runs. The Cardinal route is a great example of this. Currently this train runs only 3x per week, I believe because the section owned by the Buckingham Branch in Virginia-West Virginia cannot take on any additional capacity. Due to this, Cincinnati (only served by this route) only sees service at 1:20 AM one direction and 3:20 AM the other direction, and again, only 3 times per week.
- Another example: Amtrak owns the Harrisburg-Philadelphia corridor and 14 trains go from Harrisburg to Philadelphia (and on to New York) per day. The 104 miles to Philadelphia takes 1:45. Only 1 train in each direction travels the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route each day, owned by Norfolk Southern, and takes 5:25 to cover the 249 miles.
I think Amtrak has the potential to be competitive for travel under a certain distance, say, 450 miles, but of course anything long-distance, not as much. I appreciate Amtrak's existence as an option. I do enjoy taking Amtrak when the option is available, although it is not usually the most cost-effective option.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 22, 2015, 10:22:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2015, 04:32:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.
Which roads don't carry the post?
There are a few, like Nature Boy's example, but probably not very many. And I'd say that UPS or FedEx would probably deliver to that address, so that probably qualifies as "post." I have a PO box as well and I live on a road that has rural delivery.
The question is what exactly is meant by "post road". Given that in the Northeast we have "Boston Post Road", "Albany Post Road", and whatnot, there is a certain perception that a "post road" is an intercity road constructed for the explicit purpose of transporting mail long distance. This could be interpreted to mean that only intercity roads (and not local roads) are appropriate use of federal money.
Of course, the authors of the constitution did not envision automobiles or even railroads. Nor did they envision huge sprawling metro areas. In a world where most of Manhattan was still farmland and even the largest cities only covered a couple square miles, it was only roads between cities that were of national importance. Today that's not the case, and a lot of transportation within cities is of national importance.
So
in spirit it is a valid application of that provision even if it does not necessarily meet what it literally says. When you try to run a government based on a document written 228 years ago, you're going to have to reinterpret a few passages so they make sense in the modern world.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2015, 08:46:52 AM
\Eliminate it and the free market will fill in its needs with new bus and plane routes. Leaving, more or less, the northeast corridor. Can we fairly say that roads and air cannot completely cover the personal transit needs there (remember that freight is not part of the question, as it is handled profitably by investor owned trains) ? Maybe? If the answer is yes and passenger trains are needed then is that a national or a local/regional problem? The easy answer is national. But that is wrong. It is a local/regional problem, of, and this is important, the wealthiest part of the country. It make no economic sense to transfer money from motorists elsewhere in the country to fund a solution to a local/regional problem in the wealthiest part of the country. More than enough local resources (taxes, fares) to cover it.
I just thought I would add that florida currently has 2 completely privately funded passenger rail projects, one under construction, and one about to start construction. First time in a long time there has been new private rail transit in this country, and outside the northeast.
And both primarily intended for tourists (assuming the one supposedly 'about to start construction' is the maglev from OIA to the convention center). Tourists are not exactly your average user, especially business travelers going to conventions.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2015, 01:11:21 AM
The question is what exactly is meant by "post road". Given that in the Northeast we have "Boston Post Road", "Albany Post Road", and whatnot, there is a certain perception that a "post road" is an intercity road constructed for the explicit purpose of transporting mail long distance. This could be interpreted to mean that only intercity roads (and not local roads) are appropriate use of federal money.
Of course, the authors of the constitution did not envision automobiles or even railroads. Nor did they envision huge sprawling metro areas. In a world where most of Manhattan was still farmland and even the largest cities only covered a couple square miles, it was only roads between cities that were of national importance. Today that's not the case, and a lot of transportation within cities is of national importance.
So in spirit it is a valid application of that provision even if it does not necessarily meet what it literally says. When you try to run a government based on a document written 228 years ago, you're going to have to reinterpret a few passages so they make sense in the modern world.
Since the primary purpose of that Congressional power was to allow creation of a national postal service, ISTM that the ancillary "post road" power could cover, without discomfort, any road that could be used for mail delivery. (Not that the Feds would need be involved in roadbuilding, if it could just piggyback on the roads created by state and local governments for non-mail delivery purposes.) Also, the custom of naming only some major roads as "post roads" seem to be a Northeastern thing, that doesn't drive interpretation of a provision covering states as far south as Georgia which don't have designated "post roads", let alone new states authorized under the Constitution.
In any case, the power to establish "post roads" doesn't prohibit Federal involvement with other kinds of roads (if any), so long as some other power could apply. As noted above, "national defense" was a key part of the justification (especially for PR purposes during the Cold War) for the Interstate highway system.
I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 23, 2015, 10:41:29 AM
I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.
Not quite true: http://www.svtransport.org/Intercity/Intercity.html
Quote from: bandit957 on March 23, 2015, 10:41:29 AM
I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.
Thought I read somewhere that a small airline was going to start passenger service between Pikeville and Nashville.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2015, 04:25:26 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on March 23, 2015, 10:41:29 AM
I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.
Thought I read somewhere that a small airline was going to start passenger service between Pikeville and Nashville.
I vaguely remember seeing something about this maybe a year ago. I forgot all about it until now.
Pikeville does have a small airport - or it did. I don't know what the point is in having an airport if there's no airliners serving it.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 23, 2015, 08:53:21 PM
Pikeville does have a small airport - or it did. I don't know what the point is in having an airport if there's no airliners serving it.
The vast majority of US airports are for general aviation (think 4-seater planes). Goldsby, OK, population 1200, has at least four airports, only one of which has so much as a paved runway, beacon, and airport code (1K4: it's not even important enough to get three letters).
Pikeville has an airport and has a semi-charter to Nashville.
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Direct-Flight-from-Pikeville-to-Nashville-Seeing-a-Slow-Takeoff--297177751.html (http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Direct-Flight-from-Pikeville-to-Nashville-Seeing-a-Slow-Takeoff--297177751.html)
Probably gone soon. With modern highways, its not that far to drive to Charleston, the Tri-Cities, or Lexington. Cincinnati or Louisville are not unreasonable.
As to the bus comment, NE2 is right. The same is true throughout Appalachia and, I suspect, other rural places. There are small, generally somewhat governmentally subsidized, bus outfits that ply the backroads and take people to "town". They don't interline with the Greyhound dominated national system and thus don't show up in a general search for bus connections and make it look like the town is unreachable except by car. In WV, I can name ten such operations at least that run to and from some really small places.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 07:24:45 AM
As to the bus comment, NE2 is right. The same is true throughout Appalachia and, I suspect, other rural places. There are small, generally somewhat governmentally subsidized, bus outfits that ply the backroads and take people to "town". They don't interline with the Greyhound dominated national system and thus don't show up in a general search for bus connections and make it look like the town is unreachable except by car. In WV, I can name ten such operations at least that run to and from some really small places.
I think having (relatively) short-haul bus service to connect to national transportation networks (including air, bus and in some cases railroad) is not such a bad idea (
even if it consumes some operating subsidy) - and the costs are relatively low (unlike Amtrak).
Some private bus companies provide such service to rural college towns.
The government subsidizes small regional airports don't they? I remember reading that the Lebanon (NH) Municipal Airport gets government funding and you can only catch flights to Boston and White Plains, NY from there. I remember reading this was common and that a lot of smaller airports like that receive it.
And in rural college towns where no private company provides bus service, the University will often step in and offer a shuttle to the nearest train/bus station or airport.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 24, 2015, 11:23:57 AM
I think having (relatively) short-haul bus service to connect to national transportation networks (including air, bus and in some cases railroad) is not such a bad idea (even if it consumes some operating subsidy) - and the costs are relatively low (unlike Amtrak).
Some private bus companies provide such service to rural college towns.
Something between a local city bus system and a big intercity network like Megabus or Greyhound might work.
Or expand each city's bus system to go all the way to the edge of the metropolitan area or trade area, where you can catch the next city's buses.