I really don't know if this counts as political and if the mods feel it is, they should lock it:
Now that the interstate highway system is all but finished, I don't think we need the Federal Government involved in building transportation infrastructure anymore. State and local officials treat federal transportation grants as "free money" and undertake questionable projects to get it, which is why everyone and their mother seems to want to build a streetcar these days. It also leads to projects being built not because they offer the greatest cost to benefit ratio but because that state's congressman happens to chair the appropriations committee. A few states that have highly dispersed populations that require more highways per capita might require some federal assistance, but I think we could safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents. What do you guys think?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.
Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because they cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.
Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because the cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)
This is spoken like someone who doesn't own a car.
Everyone benefits from roads and (contrary to kernals12 assertions) public transportation. It shouldn't have, or need, a segregated funding system. Let regular taxes pay for it and have everyone have some skin in the game.
There is only 1 small, tiny-tiny issue with this:
It would be a disaster. States like Texas, California, or Florida has plenty of income, and could conceivably to build new roads at a slightly less "you get a freeway, you get a freeway, EVRYONE GETS A FREEWAY!" pace. But states like Oklahoma, who is completely dependent on petroleum industry taxes to keep the state budget from turning into a clisterfuck, would get screwed. They already have trouble building and maintaining roads as it is, so cutting federal funding would mean that a private company would have to build stuff. More than they already are.
OKC needs a beltway? ODOT is trying to fix the infrastructure they have! They can't build one! But, fear not, the OTA can! All you need to do is pay a small toll to use it! Tulsa wants a streetcar system too? Oh, we don't have the money for that. Here, take these crapy busses from 1997 that are starting to show there age, and break down constantly, making no one want to ride them!
I get your thought process, but it doesn't take into account that some states still need that money besides just for new highways, but just to keep state infrastructure from collapsing. I mean, more than it already is.Cough cough, tetanus bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/87AiSUXkx3fD9HmM8).
Just as an example, how would this piece of crap (https://abandonedok.com/historic-i-40-crosstown/) be replaced without federal funding? It was already in service far longer than it should have been, and every 6 months, a new hole would develop on the deck. I had the wonderful experience of driving over this thing, and a pothole in it damaged our tire!
Anyway, don't take this the wrong way, I just wanted to explain the major downside to a policy like this.
States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2 this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 10:40:47 AM
States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2 this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.
I addressed this in the OP. I think states would be more responsible if they had to pay for their own projects.
A lot of states are considering mileage taxes and congestion tolling as supplements to the already existing gas tax. Considering that there is a State and an major Automaker pushing total electric passenger vehicle sales by 2035 I wouldn't think that bodes well for counting on the gas tax for transportation funding long term.
We have been in the post Interstate era since the 90s. There are no more earmarks. That money was put in special grant programs. I don't see waste as a big problem right now. I don't see any Fitzowls running a DOT.
Max is right. GM is going all electric by 2035. I just don't see something like the mileage tax . It might be another Utility tax. Those taxes and fees are more than my actual electricity some months.
The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc). The block transportation funding should be reduced for states that charge VMT, which discourages the move toward carbon-neutrality, in the amount of VMT that they collect.
Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:52:29 AM
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 10:40:47 AM
States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2 this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.
I addressed this in the OP. I think states would be more responsible if they had to pay for their own projects.
There are advantages of a large society, including the use of strengths to compensate weaknesses of each other. You want to remove mutal support for one of the biggest things that keep things working smoothly, the road network? Good luck.
Do you think that MA and NY would be those strong financial centers without the rest of the country behind them, for example? Or that MA would be able to have a decent defense - being one of the bottom 5 states by enlistment %%?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
Now that the interstate highway system is all but finished, I don't think we need the Federal Government involved in building transportation infrastructure anymore.
Strong disagree. Good roads and the lifestyle that good roads create are a basic function of government.
Quote
State and local officials treat federal transportation grants as "free money" and undertake questionable projects to get it, which is why everyone and their mother seems to want to build a streetcar these days.
Nah. Most state DOTs have a thoughtful list of transportation projects (at least in terms of roads, I agree that streetcars and other communal transit projects are mostly boondoggles) and attempt to achieve those priorities with revenue from all sources.
Quote
It also leads to projects being built not because they offer the greatest cost to benefit ratio but because that state's congressman happens to chair the appropriations committee.
99.9% myth. Both parties have politicians that are guilty of selling the snake oil that, somehow s/he tricked the government into building infrastructure in their state too, the plan apparently being, but for his/her brilliance they were going to build things just in the other 49.
Really?
[/quote]
Quote from: SectorZ on February 23, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
Everyone benefits from roads and (contrary to kernals12 assertions) public transportation.
Of course, everyone benefits from roads. Basic economics.
But, according to Pew Research, only 11% of Americans use communal transportation regularly. Now, certainly, some, probably most, of that is providing transport for poorer people, and helping poorer people get to and from work, and thus closer to the American Dream of car ownership, is a good thing, and should be viewed as an anti-poverty program, but the rest? It is people who CHOOSE to live in a handful of mostly east coast cities and in a certain lifestyle situation. And, more sadly, people that want to create a "gentrified" urban area with lots of streetcars and other such nonsence. That's fine, and that is their choice. It does not benefit the vast majority of Americans in any way, and maybe those who CHOOSE that lifestyle should PAY for their CHOICES.
Quote
It shouldn't have, or need, a segregated funding system. Let regular taxes pay for it and have everyone have some skin in the game.
You have it backwards. The Eisenhower lock-box pay-as-you-go system protects the gasoline tax from raids, not the other way around. If they just funded transportation out of general revenue, and that general revenue includes the gasoline tax, its is very likely (as in Europe and Canada) that vast sums of gasoline tax $$, now automatically directed to roads, would be diverted to other things, leaving less for roads, not more.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:08:35 AM
Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.
The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc).
Owners of non-traditionally powered cars should be taxed heavily, in order to make up for the gasoline tax they do not pay. It is none of any level of government's job to use taxes or anything else to force people out of their preferred lifestyle and in mass transit, or to pay for charging stations or any other infrastructure
Non-poor people who use public transportation should, rather than be incentivized, be weaned off the public subsidy, and begin paying the full price (see comments about the poor above). People should be free to buy whatever car, or anything else, they wish, free of government interference of allowing deductions for (mostly fictional at this point) vehicles that cannot achieve a role in the fleet mix with out it.
--
In sum, the system works fine as it is, although a few tweaks are needed, IMHO.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 23, 2021, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:08:35 AM
Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.
The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc).
Owners of non-traditionally powered cars should be taxed heavily, in order to make up for the gasoline tax they do not pay. It is none of any level of government's job to use taxes or anything else to force people out of their preferred lifestyle and in mass transit, or to pay for charging stations or any other infrastructure
Non-poor people who use public transportation should, rather than be incentivized, be weaned off the public subsidy, and begin paying the full price (see comments about the poor above). People should be free to buy whatever car, or anything else, they wish, free of government interference of allowing deductions for (mostly fictional at this point) vehicles that cannot achieve a role in the fleet mix with out it.
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.
Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm. Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable. This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2021, 11:45:05 AM
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.
Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm. Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable. This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country.
But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...
I set up a regional thread on the long term effects of Remote work. We may need a national one.
I think Max is right. We need to see how it plays out.
I actually agree with kernals here for once. Some of the objections are valid concerns, but I think we can work around them...
1. Kernals did not say he would completely remove federal gas taxes if he were in charge, only that he would raise state gas taxes to make the overall tax rate about how it was before. The benefit of this is it allows states to work on the projects they want to work on. The states such as the previously mentioned Oklahoma would still get fed money to help complete their projects, but if that's not enough, then here's point 2...
2. It's possible that wealthier states might help fund their poorer neighboring states to the benefit of both. For example, Louisiana has a ton on its plate right now, including the I-10 bridge in Lake Charles. It will take a lot of money to replace that bridge, which would prevent LA from building some other projects such as I-69. But Texas gets a lot of trade from I-10 into LA which could be hampered if the I-10 bridge was so dilapidated that it was unusable, so it would make sense for Texas to help Louisiana with funding the I-10 bridge, as both states would benefit. Louisiana gets a sorely needed piece of infrastructure, and Texas gets a more efficient trade and evacuation route.
3. As kernals said, I think if state gas taxes were raised and the federal ones lowered, that would make states more responsible for their actions and road projects. It might force them to listen to their citizens more than they did before.
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 11:54:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2021, 11:45:05 AM
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.
Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm. Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable. This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country.
But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...
If anything freight is going through something of a boom due to some of the affects of COVID, at least locally around Fresno. Amazon sure played their cards right with their new distribution center essentially becoming a major hub of retail commerce for Central California. Stuff like that needs people on site, even the administration functions.
To that end, I would be an example of an administrative function at my own place of employment that needs to on site. I have an office but I'm only in it maybe 25% of my typical day.
It is not appropriate to make public policy based on pseudo-science ramblings that contradict what the same pseudo-scientists said just a few years ago. Texas are reaping the fruit of such backward thinking this week.
As to tele-work, it is no question that it will be a major change. The "national" question is if a particular job can be done just as well from a home office in the suburbs, can the same job be done just as well from a cabin the Ozarks, or from a beach in Costa Rica?
Quote from: SP Cook on February 23, 2021, 12:14:16 PM
It is not appropriate to make public policy based on pseudo-science ramblings that contradict what the same pseudo-scientists said just a few years ago. Texas are reaping the fruit of such backward thinking this week.
As to tele-work, it is no question that it will be a major change. The "national" question is if a particular job can be done just as well from a home office in the suburbs, can the same job be done just as well from a cabin the Ozarks, or from a beach in Costa Rica?
Texas' situation has nothing to do with their attention or inattention to science, it has everything to do with avoiding federal regulations by having their own grid that doesn't cross state lines.
And your view on science is exactly why the Federal government needs to take more control and not leave things to the states.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:08:35 AM
States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects...
Agree. Some should be "block", some should be specific.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 23, 2021, 11:26:34 AM
Most state DOTs have a thoughtful list of transportation projects ... and attempt to achieve those priorities with revenue from all sources.
Agree. The projects that aren't really needed usually make their way to the bottom of the list when it's time for the State to actually plan what to do next.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:30:48 AM
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it. However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 11:54:16 AM
But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...
Yep. If we were to reduce federal input in favor of increased state input, I think a lot of people might be surprised how negatively that would affect supply chains. There are a lot of near-broke rural States with large highway mileages out there serving as "the crossroads of America"–i.e., the way the stuff you want and need gets from here to there.
Quote from: kphoger link=topic=28610.msg2575697#msg2575697 date=1614100895
quote author=cabiness42 link=topic=28610.msg2575670#msg2575670 date=1614097848]
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it. However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.
[/quote]
Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 12:30:37 PM
Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.
That's not what I said. It is a political opinion that it's
the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. It is another political opinion that it's
the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.
Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 12:30:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 12:21:35 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:30:48 AM
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it. However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.
Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.
(post was written before kphoger's reply)
If current trends continue, we won't be extinct, but there will be some major changes. Regarding temperature, North Carolina's current climate is what South Carolina's climate was in 1900. So move everything north one state – this includes cockroaches and kudzu, both of which we don't want. Some animal and plant species that live in cold climates can't move one state over, and they will die.
Sea level rise is more of a long-term thing (1,000 years) than short-term (100 years). You can build a short wall to keep the water out, but can you imagine a 30-foot wall (no, not that wall) everywhere there's coastline?
Hurricanes are already getting more intense.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 12:30:37 PM
Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.
That's not what I said. It is a political opinion that it's the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. It is another political opinion that it's the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.
Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.
The people aren't capable of ensuring the planet is usable in 100 years, unless you include in that definition the power to force other people who don't care to comply outside of the auspices of the government.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 12:30:37 PM
Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.
That's not what I said. It is a political opinion that it's the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. It is another political opinion that it's the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years. People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.
Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.
The people aren't capable of ensuring the planet is usable in 100 years, unless you include in that definition the power to force other people who don't care to comply outside of the auspices of the government.
That may or may not be the case. (Money talks, but how far does it walk?) But that's a political discussion for a different forum. I was just pointing out that
what the government's job is is certainly a political question/opinion–regardless of what you hope for the future of your society.
Funding responsibility shifting to the states is pretty much what happened. Nixon block granted the highway funding, and we've never re-established the federal planning we used to have. If we did, we wouldn't have such messes as I-14, the I-69 cluster in Texas, or the Carolina Southway (I-87), and new interstate construction wouldn't take so long. All this is the result of new highways being state-run efforts with no dedicated federal funding. Interstate maintenance funds don't even exist anymore - they're just lumped into the NHPP pool of funds that can be used on the entire NHS. And spending decisions are made by the states and MPOs; all FHWA can do is set rules for what each fund source can be used for. That's part of the reason why highway construction has slowed down in most states. Spending money on one thing means not spending money on another. And, as mentioned, earmarks are no more. If you want more highway construction, we'd need to re-establish interstate construction and maintenance funds.
And no, federal funding is not the only reason we spend money on transit. Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit, or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit? That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around. It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 12:21:35 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:30:48 AM
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it. However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.
It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society. If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed. If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for? If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
Funding responsibility shifting to the states is pretty much what happened. Nixon block granted the highway funding, and we've never re-established the federal planning we used to have. If we did, we wouldn't have such messes as I-14, the I-69 cluster in Texas, or the Carolina Southway (I-87), and new interstate construction wouldn't take so long. All this is the result of new highways being state-run efforts with no dedicated federal funding. Interstate maintenance funds don't even exist anymore - they're just lumped into the NHPP pool of funds that can be used on the entire NHS. And spending decisions are made by the states and MPOs; all FHWA can do is set rules for what each fund source can be used for. That's part of the reason why highway construction has slowed down in most states. Spending money on one thing means not spending money on another. And, as mentioned, earmarks are no more. If you want more highway construction, we'd need to re-establish interstate construction and maintenance funds.
And no, federal funding is not the only reason we spend money on transit. Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit, or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit? That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around. It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 12:21:35 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 23, 2021, 11:30:48 AM
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.
That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it. However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.
It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society. If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed. If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for? If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.
Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 12:59:51 PM
Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains
I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service. If buses, then buses. If trains, then trains. If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.
(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point. And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,
In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing. Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably. Kansas City, no way.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit? That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around. It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.
Very well put. If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't. However, what if there isn't? If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it? Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society. If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed. If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for? If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.
Again, politics. Not getting into it. Been there, done that.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 12:59:51 PM
Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains
I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service. If buses, then buses. If trains, then trains. If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.
(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point. And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,
In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing. Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably. Kansas City, no way.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit? That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around. It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.
Very well put. If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't. However, what if there isn't? If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it? Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society. If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed. If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for? If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.
Again, politics. Not getting into it. Been there, done that.
Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 12:59:51 PM
Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains
I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service. If buses, then buses. If trains, then trains. If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.
(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point. And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,
In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing. Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably. Kansas City, no way.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit? That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around. It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.
Very well put. If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't. However, what if there isn't? If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it? Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2021, 12:50:11 PM
It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society. If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed. If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for? If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.
Again, politics. Not getting into it. Been there, done that.
Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service
Buses are a bit more expensive than cars on passenger-mile basis at a bit over 90 cents a passenger-mile vs 57 or so for cars. That is US statistics.
Paying full price for transit would mean fare increase of anywhere between 2x (NYC MTA) to 10x - assuming ridership stays the same. Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually.
Axe the tax.
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.
Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because they cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)
Ignore depreciation. You're not an accountant for a business, writing off the car over its expected life span. You aren't depreciating your cell phone, your bedroom furniture, or even the cheeseburger you ate at lunch. Depreciation is 'paper money', not real money. If you have a loan, you can say it's costing you a specific amount each month, and that's real money.
This is similar to those that say don't waste your money on a new car, because it loses $2,000 of value the moment you drive it off a lot. I assume a used car salesperson came up with that line. Guess what...if you buy a used car, drive it off the lot and decide you don't want it, you're not going to get the full value of that back either. OK, sure some places may have a 'return' police, but as a general rule, once you sign the papers, it's yours.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 01:14:45 PM
Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service
Cheap is not the opposite of
fancy. Did you mean
expensive?
A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers. Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually.
Thank you for not ignoring that fact.
How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:31:37 PM
How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?
Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:31:37 PM
How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?
Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways
North Carolina already does that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2021, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:31:37 PM
How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?
Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways
North Carolina already does that.
I know.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 01:14:45 PM
Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service
Cheap is not the opposite of fancy. Did you mean expensive?
A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers. Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually.
Thank you for not ignoring that fact.
With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents
Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.
Gas finally got down to a reasonable price in some locations last year. Not mine, though; it never went below $2.099 here and has gone up 40 cents since the first of the year, and that doesn't even account for refinery shutdowns in Texas or the changeover to summer blend. And now we want to jack up the taxes on gas as prices are going up, the country is still in an economic crisis caused by the government's response to the virus and unemployment is still rising? Count me out.
Highways are a legitimate federal government expenditure (post offices
and post roads, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a road on which mail is not carried). What has always bugged me is that federal money is often doled out with strings attached -- pass a seat belt law, lower the BAC content to 0.08, raise the drinking age to 21, etc.
I'd rather see the feds go back to allocating certain funds to specific programs (the NHS, the ADHS, etc.) and multi-state projects like river crossings, and block-grant the rest to the states.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:23:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 01:14:45 PM
Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service
Cheap is not the opposite of fancy. Did you mean expensive?
A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers. Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually.
Thank you for not ignoring that fact.
With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.
It's a very delicate question. There is a general saying that road wear goes as 4th power of axle loading. There are a lot of discrepancies in all the data, things are more complex - but it may be close to reasonable as a ballpark
That means that a fully loaded 18-wheeler will have as much effect on a pavement as 20 thousand cars (give or take), and that is why weight limits exist and are enforced.
20 thousand may be an overestimate, but a right lane beaten up trucks and left lane in a decent condition is not an uncommon sight
Transit buses are similar to truck axle loadings, if not exceeding those. So in terms of beating up the street, bus can easily be tens and hundreds times worse than cars on per-passenger basis.
Oh, and transit fuel can be tax exempt.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:23:05 PM
With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.
Yes, the cost of tracks needs to be considered–unless there is already a railroad there with enough capacity for transit. That last part is unlikely, but adding capacity to an existing r/o/w is bound to be cheaper than acquiring all-new r/o/w. The cost of grade-separated rail service is significantly more than an at-grade line, and the cost of subway service is significantly more than
that. Long story short: the cost of new rail depends greatly on grade separation.
And yes, buses can use existing roads. But they, being heavy vehicles, do a bit of damage to those roads, and the subsequent maintenance needs to be taken into account. Furthermore, if a dedicated bus lane is called for, then highway expansion may (or may not) be an additional consideration.
(How did this thread devolve into the merits of buses
vs trains, anyway?)
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:23:05 PM
With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.
Yes, the cost of tracks needs to be considered–unless there is already a railroad there with enough capacity for transit. That last part is unlikely, but adding capacity to an existing r/o/w is bound to be cheaper than acquiring all-new r/o/w. The cost of grade-separated rail service is significantly more than an at-grade line, and the cost of subway service is significantly more than that. Long story short: the cost of new rail depends greatly on grade separation.
And yes, buses can use existing roads. But they, being heavy vehicles, do a bit of damage to those roads, and the subsequent maintenance needs to be taken into account. Furthermore, if a dedicated bus lane is called for, then highway expansion may (or may not) be an additional consideration.
(How did this thread devolve into the merits of buses vs trains, anyway?)
Rename it into
kernals12's fictional world and we may take turns discussing whatever ideas are brought on the table?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2021, 03:34:25 PMAnd now we want to jack up the taxes on gas as prices are going up, the country is still in an economic crisis caused by the government's response to the virus and unemployment is still rising? Count me out.
I don't think it's going to happen. This is purely my idea; no official from any state has proposed that large an increase (that I know of).
When I posted the same thing a few months ago, gas prices were stable. Now might not be the best time.
Vdeane is right FHWA was looking for a post Interstate plan that had some sort of design standard for a national highway system Rodney Slater had a passing lane idea for lower volume rural sections . But the NHS failed and became a new name for the FAP system.
Btw there is proposed i legislation in Illinois to require public objective criteria for at least major projects. Well see if that goes anywhere.
Let me get this straight. You want transportation funding in my area to be handled by the same government that made the Craig County sign?
Remember, the other organs of the Oklahoma government are worse than ODOT. And that includes the Legislature.
Quote from: 3467 on February 23, 2021, 06:19:21 PM
Vdeane is right FHWA was looking for a post Interstate plan that had some sort of design standard for a national highway system Rodney Slater had a passing lane idea for lower volume rural sections . But the NHS failed and became a new name for the FAP system.
Btw there is proposed i legislation in Illinois to require public objective criteria for at least major projects. Well see if that goes anywhere.
Insert joke about Illinois corruption
Yep Joke about state corruption it's rampant. I think there are some mass resignations in Texas .....anyway the issue makes a case for federal involvement now.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 02:31:37 PM
How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?
Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways
The FHWA could always limit the amount of Interstates approved then.
Three things that I think many commenters (and people in general) are missing in the grander context:
- SP Cook alluded to this, but the Constitution specifically points out that Congress has the power to establish Post roads. It should also be noted that Jefferson disagreed with this and felt that roads should be entirely left to the states.
- Transit: still important, even beyond those "6 cities" mentioned by kernals. Transit may not carry capital goods, but it certainly carries human capital and contributes considerably to economic output in those cities. And keep in mind that cities by and large are the economic engines of this nation. Taking Boston for example (since kernals lives in that area), the GDP for the Boston metropolitan area alone is over $400 billion, which is over 70% of the Massachusetts total and is larger than 35 states.
- Some commenters say that transit users should "pay the full cost" of their ride. By that logic, we would have to raise the gas tax by approximately $0.50/gallon for drivers to "pay the full cost" of their roads. It's a common misnomer that gas taxes fully pay for roads....it doesn't even come close.
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2021, 11:59:32 AM
- SP Cook alluded to this, but the Constitution specifically points out that Congress has the power to establish Post roads.
On the other hand...
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 13, 2020, 04:57:16 PM
Do you or the president need to consult the Constitution every time you take a dump, to see if there's a provision in there that will allow you to do it?
:-P
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2021, 11:59:32 AM
Three things that I think many commenters (and people in general) are missing in the grander context:
- SP Cook alluded to this, but the Constitution specifically points out that Congress has the power to establish Post roads. It should also be noted that Jefferson disagreed with this and felt that roads should be entirely left to the states.
- Transit: still important, even beyond those "6 cities" mentioned by kernals. Transit may not carry capital goods, but it certainly carries human capital and contributes considerably to economic output in those cities. And keep in mind that cities by and large are the economic engines of this nation. Taking Boston for example (since kernals lives in that area), the GDP for the Boston metropolitan area alone is over $400 billion, which is over 70% of the Massachusetts total and is larger than 35 states.
- Some commenters say that transit users should "pay the full cost" of their ride. By that logic, we would have to raise the gas tax by approximately $0.50/gallon for drivers to "pay the full cost" of their roads. It's a common misnomer that gas taxes fully pay for roads....it doesn't even come close.
Gas taxes don't but when combined with registration fees and car sales taxes they do.
https://www.newgeography.com/content/006415-transport-costs-subsidies-mode
Road subsidies amount to 1 cent per passenger mile, and that's all public roads, not just highways. For transit it's 1
dollar per passenger mile.
As for Boston, much of that economic activity occurs in Waltham, Framingham, and Burlington, all of which are very car dependent
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2021, 03:34:25 PMAnd now we want to jack up the taxes on gas as prices are going up, the country is still in an economic crisis caused by the government's response to the virus and unemployment is still rising? Count me out.
I don't think it's going to happen. This is purely my idea; no official from any state has proposed that large an increase (that I know of).
When I posted the same thing a few months ago, gas prices were stable. Now might not be the best time.
There's talk in Kentucky of raising gas taxes a dime. The legislature is in session now, and because of last week's bad weather, the meeting dates were postponed. That gave them an additional week to introduce new legislation (the deadline had been last week) and the highway contractors and their pawns have been working overtime trying to get a gas tax hike going. It's really pitting two GOP groups against each other (both houses of our legislature have been controlled by the Republicans since 2017). The chamber-of-commerce and establishment types against the grassroots and Americans For Prosperity types. There's no popular support for increasing the taxes, but certain subsets of the party are pushing hard for it against the wishes of their constituents.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 03:37:00 PM
It's really pitting two GOP groups against each other (both houses of our legislature have been controlled by the Republicans since 2017).
Just wondering: are these the "switched from D to R after 2010" group and the "have always been R" group?
I'm trying to better understand the South's switch from D to R and why it happened later in the state legislatures than Congress, and later in Congress than the Presidency. KY and WV were (it ended in the 2020 elections) the last two states to have what I would describe as pre-1990s Southern Democrats, and I trust you over SP Cook on this.
Quote from: 1 on February 24, 2021, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 03:37:00 PM
It's really pitting two GOP groups against each other (both houses of our legislature have been controlled by the Republicans since 2017).
Just wondering: are these the "switched from D to R after 2010" group and the "have always been R" group?
I'm trying to better understand the South's switch from D to R and why it happened later in the state legislatures than Congress, and later in Congress than the Presidency. KY and WV were (it ended in the 2020 elections) the last two states to have what I would describe as pre-1990s Southern Democrats, and I trust you over SP Cook on this.
I can't speak for West Virginia, but Kentucky's change has been gradual and occurred in different ways.
D's still have an advantage in voter registration. They basically controlled state government, and most local governments, for decades. Kentucky has only had three Republican governors since, I think the 1940s (1967-71, and he was a tax-increasing RINO; 2003-07; and 2015-19). We did have GOP senators, and an occasional GOP congressman outside the "old Fifth" district of south-central and the western portion of southeast Kentucky which was the only Republican area of the state, and the state would go R in some presidential elections.
Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and 1996, but Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee didn't in 2000.
Republicans got control of the state Senate about 20 years ago. A handful of Democrats joined with Republicans to oust the Senate president in favor of another Democrat, but party defections and subsequent elections handed control of the Senate completely to the GOP in subsequent years. Republicans made inroads in the House, narrowing the gap, but didn't succeed in flipping control until 2016, most likely due to Donald Trump's coattails. Now the GOP has supermajorities in both chambers.
Party registration has pretty much gone from a 2:1 advantage for the D's to what we have today, which is closer to 1.3:1 in their favor. If voter registration trends continue, it's likely that Republicans will take the advantage in a decade.
In the 2018 local elections, for the first time ever, Republicans took a majority of the county judge-executive positions in the state. I haven't seen any hard numbers on the proportions of all local elected officials, but when all of the partisan positions are factored in (magistrates/commissioners, county attorneys, county court clerks, circuit court clerks, sheriffs, property valuation administrators, and those mayor and city council races that are chosen on a partisan basis, etc.) I suspect the D's still have the overall majority, although much slimmer than it was.
Much of the credit for the GOP's rise in Kentucky is given to Mitch McConnell, who has worked hard to build the party for state and local elections. (Contrary to popular belief, I detest McConnell for a variety of reasons, both political and policy-wise.)
I don't think the breakdown of establishment vs. populist/tea party types can be translated into longtime Republicans against new converts, to finally answer your question. The grassroots of the party has always been more conservative than the leadership. I've heard of some folks who changed parties before being elected to the legislature, and some of them probably owe allegiance to McConnell. In my own county, our county judge-executive comes from a Democrat family. His father ran for CJE in the 80s a couple of times but didn't win. The son, a Navy veteran who returned home after retiring and is a longtime friend of mine who's a couple of years older than me, got involved in local politics. He ran for CJE as a Democrat and, if I remember correctly, didn't get the nomination. Four years later, he ran as an independent. He finally switched to Republican and in 2018, he won a crowded primary, defeating an incumbent, and then won the general election. He's been beating the drum for a state gas tax increase.
Let's not let this topic stray too far into politics please. I think we have enough of a background to move onward.
It's my understanding that for the fourth year in a row, Kentucky legislator Sal Santoro (a Republican) has introduced legislation calling for a 10-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase, as well as some increases in vehicle registration fees, the details of which I don't know.
Given that this comes on the heels of reported 20-cent-per-gallon price increases, and predictions of gas going up to $3 or even $4 a gallon by year's end, I hope this legislation does not pass.