I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.
CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.
Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt
Quote from: doofy103 on June 10, 2012, 09:10:55 PM
I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.
CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.
Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt
I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on June 10, 2012, 09:10:55 PM
I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.
CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.
Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt
I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.
The 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2012, 10:28:02 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on June 10, 2012, 09:10:55 PM
I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.
CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.
Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt
I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.
The 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.
The Baltimore Sun had an editorial about this recently: Transportation bill: Do Republicans want to sabotage the economy? (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-transportation-20120610,0,6085847.story)
Quite possibly, since they are assuming (correctly) that Americans will just blame it on Obama since he's the president. One of my social studies teachers even said that McCain deliberately lost the 2008 election so the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the recession.
Quote from: deanej on June 12, 2012, 03:11:07 PM
One of my social studies teachers even said that McCain deliberately lost the 2008 election so the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the recession.
And this idiot is teaching young people?
And, Al Gore finally gave up to 'W' so that recession could be blamed on the Republicans.
I still find it perplexing that McCain chose Palin as his vice-presidential candidate. Ever since the 2008 election McCain has played it completely straight and insisted, in defiance of all logic, that his choice of Palin was sincere and that he firmly believes in her qualifications. However, it has been reported that McCain's first choice for running mate was Joe Lieberman, but the party grandees told him he couldn't have Lieberman. This prompts me to think that the choice of Palin reflects a deliberate decision on McCain's part to pour molten gold down the throats of the Weekly Standard crowd.
^^^
Now, that is plausible.
______________________________
Anyway, back on topic.
Infrastructure funding always has been and always will be a political football. In part, because it is one of the most visible uses of government spending.
Such disputes may even be unrelated to highway spending but more of "if you don't do what we want, well stall highway funding." Usually, something gives.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 12, 2012, 04:00:32 PMThis prompts me to think that the choice of Palin reflects a deliberate decision on McCain's part to pour molten gold down the throats of the Weekly Standard crowd.
I'd always thought of McCain as
being the Weekly Standard crowd. he's certainly not a paleoconservative like Sarah Palin.
if anyone decided to do some molten gold-pouring, it was the Republican nomination committees, in an attempt to pander to the religious right and what would later be known as the "tea party" wing of the GOP.
Actually current polling indicates by a narrow margin Obama is not getting the blame. There will be some sort of extension. There is also supposed to be a rally tomorrow . Its really something to see the House more non functional than the Senate
McCain didnt delibratly lose. Steve Schmidt his top advisor pushed Palin because their polling showed he needed to do something bold to win. He needed a Game Change. There was a book and a movie by that name.
It's hard to do when faced with a topic like this, but let's keep this as focused on the highway bill as possible, and not get into things like why Palin exists or how this will affect Obama or anything of that nature, shall we?
Scott, unfortunately, this is in reality a partisan issue nowadays because of the type of people in Congress.
Before I get into my remarks, I preface this by saying that I have voted for people from both parties in the past. I did vote for Clinton twice and for Bush Jr twice.
I just find it insulting that this Congress feels it necessary to do this with everything that in past years has not been a huge issue. They did the same crap with the debt ceiling extension which was never an issue for any other President before including Bush Jr, Clinton, and Reagan and federal judges getting approved. The Republicans I am sure feel that if the highway bill is passed, which in turn will create shovel ready jobs, that they won't get the credit and Obama will. They also feel that the unemployment rate may go down below 8 if this passes. Most people would think unemployment going down would be a good thing but not if you hear what Limbaugh said back in 2009. He said, "I want this President to fail." McConnell said, "I want to make him a one term President." Which means to me, the citizens be damned for the sake of the Presidency. This is something you never heard with any previous President. Remember the country was losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took over.
I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed. And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.
I will say that I was pleasantly surprised by the bipartisanship that has come out for the new Stillwater Bridge, supported by most local/state politicians from both parties including Rep Bachman and Rep Kind but unfortunately that is just 1 project out of hundreds or thousands yet to be even debated on, let alone voted on.
All this being said, pass the highway bill NOW. For example, there are a ton of bridges that are so deficient in their current conditions that I pray we don't get another I-35W tragedy any time soon.
hobsini is exactly right. I was just giving the background on the Palin decison
I voted Reagan twice ,Daddy Bush twice Gore Kerry and Obama Twice. I voted for McCain in the against Bush the younger
Reagan vetoed the highway bill in I think it was 87 and Congress overrode him. It really want over spending but earmarks and that was really the main debate none of teh presidents liked them and Congress ex a few like McCain loved them.
There are no earmarks per se in the bill According to Dick Durbin there is just a hint list for the DOTs I have not seen it if its only maybe we could post that
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2012, 07:05:33 PM
I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed. And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.
Well, if it increases the deficit, it does not help America prosper, at least in the long run.
Well, of course you long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. The "bipartisanship" of that era was basically the Republicans rolling over and giving the Democrats 85-100% of what they wanted. That time made me sick as the Republican politicians had no backbone.
Compromise is meeting people half-way not giving in!
EDIT:
Hey I have another solution. Why not have the feds get out of something that is not their business. Repeal the federal gas tax and stop funding transportation at the federal level and leave it to the states.
Given recent trends with these transportation bills, I have to wonder what new interstates will be born in this one. Am I right in remembering that there's been at least one new I-number/route in every transportation bill for the last 20 years or something? It sure feels like it.
In Wisconsin, we're dealing with the sausage-making of our new interstate corridor that was inserted into the last transportation bill. The US 41 corridor is certainly I-worthy and for me, it was a pleasant surprise last time.
Anyone know of any serious rumblings in their state/region that might come up this time around?
Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2012, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2012, 07:05:33 PM
I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed. And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.
Well, if it increases the deficit, it does not help America prosper, at least in the long run.
Well, of course you long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. The "bipartisanship" of that era was basically the Republicans rolling over and giving the Democrats 85-100% of what they wanted. That time made me sick as the Republican politicians had no backbone.
Compromise is meeting people half-way not giving in!
EDIT:
Hey I have another solution. Why not have the feds get out of something that is not their business. Repeal the federal gas tax and stop funding transportation at the federal level and leave it to the states.
Mightyace, Obama's Health Care bill was initially the same ideas Republicans had suggested as far back as Nixon. That shows you how far right the Republicans have moved. Dole, along with Roosevelt and Eisenhower, would be considered a liberal in this Congress.
As far as the deficit goes, the deficit ballooned so much because Obama started counting the costs of the 2 wars on to it. Bush did not. And the Bush Tax Cuts also added to the debt according to the CBO.
Also, the problem with the states funding for highway projects is most states could not afford them and the quality of the road would then vary more than it does now from state to state. Highway funding for federal highways is not a state's rights issue.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2012, 07:53:17 PM
Given recent trends with these transportation bills, I have to wonder what new interstates will be born in this one. Am I right in remembering that there's been at least one new I-number/route in every transportation bill for the last 20 years or something? It sure feels like it.
In Wisconsin, we're dealing with the sausage-making of our new interstate corridor that was inserted into the last transportation bill. The US 41 corridor is certainly I-worthy and for me, it was a pleasant surprise last time.
Anyone know of any serious rumblings in their state/region that might come up this time around?
I think you are correct. Certainly I-99 and Future I-3 in Georgia was part of that a couple years ago.
Back on topic...
My belief is that transportation spending is a local/state issue, and the federal government should not be involved.
State and Local are broke so no road funding
So's the federal govt. except they keep running the printing press...
We keep this deficit spending up, someday our economy will collapse for good! And, that would be the time to get a home-grown dictator.
Ah, the old "the federal government is broke" meme.
Well, no one can spend more money than they make forever, even governments.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2012, 10:28:02 AMThe 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.
Their failure to compromise has been with the executive, though there's obviously problems between House and Senate not agreeing (or even refusing to consider agreeing when Harry Reid refused to put the House's budget to the vote in the Senate). And that said, the 111th Congress, with both houses Democrat, had some major problems with getting stuff passed that the President wanted.
The question is "is Obama going to politicise this and tell Congress he'd veto a bill without certain projects or with certain others?", if so, it might be difficult to get the bill passed, as the opposition to the President in Congress is bipartisan and overwhelming.
Quote from: english si on June 15, 2012, 03:17:02 AM
The question is "is Obama going to politicise this and tell Congress he'd veto a bill without certain projects or with certain others?", if so, it might be difficult to get the bill passed, as the opposition to the President in Congress is bipartisan and overwhelming.
That is a somewhat simplistic way of describing the dynamics of the present Congress. The Republican Party is much easier to marshal into one stance or another. It is a lot more ideologically homogeneous, so its leaders have less trouble convincing everyone to vote the same way. The Democratic Party is more of a "big tent" party than the GOP at this point; it is made up of a lot of different constituencies. (You could almost, but not quite, compare it to a coalition government in your own Parliament.) One of the factions of the Democratic Party is called the Blue Dog Democrats and they are considered moderate to mildly conservative compared to the rest of the party. They tend to be from conservative states like those in the South that would otherwise not elect Democrats, and accordingly, these Democrats vote with Republicans on some (but not all) issues.
It is exactly this branch of the Democratic Party that caused headaches for the President during the 111th Congress (where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate). Trying to get conservative Democrats from heavily Republican states to vote for things like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) takes a great deal of effort. Fortunately for the President, they are at least more amenable to compromise than the Republicans have tended to be.
Another problem that Obama has faced is that Sen. Reid seems much more reluctant to use his powers as Majority Leader to make life rough for his party members that don't fall in line than Sen. McConnell has.
I really with more people would take that stuff into account. Getting the Democrats in line is like herding cats.
People keep bringing up Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Roosevelt was considered liberal by the Republicans in his day and was ironically made vice president in an effort to keep him away from the presidency (which failed due to McKinley being assassinated). Eisenhower didn't have a party before he became president and was wanted by both the Democrats and Republicans.
I wonder what Lincoln would think of the Republican party myself. The parties of his day, despite officially being the same ones as we have today, were essentially opposites of what they are now.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 14, 2012, 08:11:32 PM
Back on topic...
My belief is that transportation spending is a local/state issue, and the federal government should not be involved.
Your belief is wrong.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
QuoteSection 8
The Congress shall have Power...
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
This gives the federal government the authority to build roads upon which mail is carried. And realistically, that is just about every one of them in the nation.
The Constitution says they have the authority to establish post offices and post roads, not that they have to. Realistically, you don't need a 10-lane freeway to deliver mail, so even if Congress was required to build a path to every city, a gravel road would suffice. While most of the constitution is still very much relevant, it is hard to tell if the founding fathers would have stuck that clause in there if the Constitution were being written today. They had horse-and-buggy and sailboats; we have airplanes, steel roads (railroads) 10-lane superhighways, and nuclear powered boats.
On that note, does anyone have more information as to why the Post Road clause was added to the Constitution? Here in 2012, it seems very archaic and outdated. I highly doubt that much discussion went on as to the most efficient form and structure of mail delivery. ;-)
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 03:05:20 PMOn that note, does anyone have more information as to why the Post Road clause was added to the Constitution? Here in 2012, it seems very archaic and outdated. I highly doubt that much discussion went on as to the most efficient form and structure of mail delivery.
At the time the Constitution was drafted, there was not in fact any regular mail delivery service, let alone one administered by a government agency or public corporation. A post road was simply a road which was suitable for delivering messages--written or oral--by a dispatch rider on horseback.
That was a vital national interest which could not be left to the vagaries of any one state, especially since technology at the time did not permit messages to be transmitted or received through a wired or wireless infrastructure.
There are a couple of additional justifications for federal involvement in infrastructure investment. They are pragmatic rather than constitutional. (I for one frankly find it exhausting to see the Constitution used all the time as a stalking horse for obtuse anti-collectivist arguments which the Founding Fathers, fresh from the experience of the Articles of Confederation, would have found both disturbing and deeply destabilizing.)
* Federal funding is weakly redistributive and allows us to have a semblance of a regional infrastructure policy, which at least ensures that poor access to transport is not a reason pockets of poverty stay poor.
* Federal funding ensures that crossings of state borders are available to serve interstate commerce even when these crossings do not serve the direct interests of the states involved.
Edit: Congress was granted few if any powers in the Constitution in the expectation that they would be left unexercised. The only example of a fallow provision that comes readily to mind is the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. (The major European powers swore off privateering about 75 years after the Constitution was ratified. We never signed the relevant convention, but aside from brief flirtations with the idea of letting private yachts attack enemy ships, we have generally found it in our national interest to abide by it.)
Having a cohesive transportation network is something in the Federal interest of a sovereign nation. This is why the MUTCD carries so much weight - uniformity helps drivers, but it also helps move goods, and that moves our economy. I think our government does stick its nose into too many places, but transportation is not one of them.
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
For the same reason everyone who posts on here uses the same font, size, and color.
You should read this history of the MUTCD: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-history.htm In short, a coalition of states basically did a lot of the early heavy lifting to standardize signs, and then the MUTCD was later established to codify this.
Honestly, it is obviously better that everyone can see that a given sign is a guide sign because it is green. Allowing the states the latitude to break ranks and use whatever color they want only makes things worse for the road user, just so we can say "ooo the state can decide something the federal government can't!" What is the point in giving someone that option if exercising it just makes things worse for the population?
Different colored signs in different states would probably not be the result of a states only transportation policy, because there is value in some standardization between states. What may happen is some states may decide to make toll-road signs all purple at the decision point, or some state may decide to make the area around an airport logo blue, etc.
What is important for this case is that it probably won't happen for a couple of years. If Federal funding expires on June 30, the state DOT won't go around making traffic signals pink, orange, and blue and making stop signs tetrahedrons on July 1st. There is value in inertia and not changing things just to change things.
Sure, you may say that states can experiment, they just have to do it through the FHWA. Do you know how much paperwork and time it takes for a city to color the bike lanes at conflict points, like has been done in Europe for half a century? Federal bureaucracy has its cost in time, lives, and money.
The top service planner at RTD (the bus system in the Denver Metro Area) told me that when he used to work for the Oregon DOT at the time when Federal Funding started rolling in (you can see how old he is!) for highway enhancements, Oregon was building brand new rest areas with 92% federal funding while having to cut deeply into snow-plowing and trash pickup. Would Oregon with control of all of their money be willing to build a new rest area, or would they prefer to focus their resources on life-critical needs?
My city, Fort Collins, is currently building a fancy BRT busway one block west of the main street. 90% of the cost is paid for by the Federal Government or by state sources, and can only be spent on concrete. It sounds fine until you see that bus service stops running at 7pm and all day on Sundays! We have hourly headways on most routes, and transit generally sucks. No transit planner worth his salt would tell you the first thing you need to do is build a busway! Yet Fort Collins is building a busway, because the local transit agency adapted a circus-seal mentality and will only make improvements if they get a bailout from Congress.
I see the 18.4 cent gas tax we are sending up to Washington, and wonder why the hell Washington has to even get involved at all! We send our tax up to them, they spend it on other things, and then we have to fight based on how many favored politicians we elect just to get back a few pennies. Not only do we get back pennies of what we put in, it comes back with plenty of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense.
In Canada, the Federal Government stays out of transportation for the most part. There is no country-wide gas tax, because transportation is left to the provinces and cities. What they have to show for it is a 10% NATIONWIDE transit modal share, decent transit in smaller cities, frequent transit to every part of the larger Metropolitan areas, and overall financial resiliency. What bus routes where you live run every 3 minutes at 3pm, let alone 3 am (http://www.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=320N&Stop=n.b._on_YONGE_at_CARLTON)! You don't get such amazingly good service by spending all your money pouring concrete, you get it by giving your customers what they want, which is service.
Lets do a little math. Federal tax is 18.4 cents, and federal funds cover about 20% of all transportation spending, counting capital and operating costs. 2 cents goes into a separate transit account, so 16.4 cents goes to highways. The state gas tax in Colorado is 22 cents. What you can see here is that 80% is supported with 22 cents, and 20% is supported with 16.4 cents. See the problem yet? If the Federal Gas tax went away, all that it would take to fund transportation at state spending levels would be a 5.5 cent increase in the state gas tax. Already, we have saved 10.9 cents and our roads are in no worse shape. With those 10.9 cents, lets give 5.9 back to the taxpayer, give 1 cent to more frequent repaving, 1 cent for more frequent maintenance, and give 3 cents for increased public transportation. (Though if you wanted to fund public transportation, the best source would be a property tax, and the second best source would be a sales tax. I only used the gas tax so you could compare apples-to-apples.) The end result is the taxpayer having lower taxes, better transit, more frequent repaving, and higher standards of maintenance, all from eliminating Federal Government meddling in transportation.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PMDifferent colored signs in different states would probably not be the result of a states only transportation policy, because there is value in some standardization between states. What may happen is some states may decide to make toll-road signs all purple at the decision point, or some state may decide to make the area around an airport logo blue, etc.
This already happens to an extent with federal funding participation, since only substantial (not absolute) conformity is required, and some rather large excursions from national standards are tolerated since FHWA tends to pursue a "low-hanging fruit first" approach.
QuoteSure, you may say that states can experiment, they just have to do it through the FHWA. Do you know how much paperwork and time it takes for a city to color the bike lanes at conflict points, like has been done in Europe for half a century? Federal bureaucracy has its cost in time, lives, and money.
Some aspects of the process have been streamlined with interim approvals (which, if memory serves, were introduced in the 2003
MUTCD). And in any case, coloring bike lanes is a bad example. I am not aware of a single European country which has thought well enough of the efficacy of the technique to establish bike lane coloring as a traffic sign, to require coloring for any significant proportion of the bike lanes built or maintained by local agencies, etc. In Britain, for example, bike lane coloring is not a traffic sign and is therefore unregulated, so there is no uniformity in the colors used, red and green being the most common.
The advantage of the
MUTCD experimentation process is that it requires a demonstration that a proposed new technique (such as bike lane coloring) really does improve traffic movement or safety before it is added to the
MUTCD. While it can be argued that it is inequitable for a single agency to bear the administrative cost of a successful experiment when its peer agencies throughout the entire US benefit from the results at no cost to themselves, that is really an argument for pooled funding for experiments rather than against evidence-based policy development. (There is, in fact, an ongoing TCD pooled fund study.)
QuoteI see the 18.4 cent gas tax we are sending up to Washington, and wonder why the hell Washington has to even get involved at all! We send our tax up to them, they spend it on other things, and then we have to fight based on how many favored politicians we elect just to get back a few pennies. Not only do we get back pennies of what we put in, it comes back with plenty of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense.
Lets do a little math. Federal tax is 18.4 cents, and federal funds cover about 20% of all transportation spending, counting capital and operating costs. 2 cents goes into a separate transit account, so 16.4 cents goes to highways. The state gas tax in Colorado is 22 cents. What you can see here is that 80% is supported with 22 cents, and 20% is supported with 16.4 cents. See the problem yet? If the Federal Gas tax went away, all that it would take to fund transportation at state spending levels would be a 5.5 cent increase in the state gas tax. Already, we have saved 10.9 cents and our roads are in no worse shape. With those 10.9 cents, lets give 5.9 back to the taxpayer, give 1 cent to more frequent repaving, 1 cent for more frequent maintenance, and give 3 cents for increased public transportation. (Though if you wanted to fund public transportation, the best source would be a property tax, and the second best source would be a sales tax. I only used the gas tax so you could compare apples-to-apples.) The end result is the taxpayer having lower taxes, better transit, more frequent repaving, and higher standards of maintenance, all from eliminating Federal Government meddling in transportation.
Your math is just flat-out wrong. Every state has a guaranteed minimum recovery (typically in excess of 90%) of its share of the federal gasoline tax that goes to Washington. In order to replace this, the gasoline tax in Colorado would have to rise by at least 90% * 18.4c/gallon = 16.6 c/gallon to replace the lost federal contribution. It is not appropriate to apply the alleged 20% federal share in all transportation spending to Colorado without first establishing that the national funding mix (which includes incomings and outgoings on toll roads, bond issues, heavy-rail urban mass transit systems, etc.) is representative of Colorado. Plus it is no longer true that motoring taxes collected at the state level support the residue that is not paid for by the federal gas tax. In the absence of a comprehensive reauthorization bill which reaffirms the user-pays principle and taxes use at a level commensurate with expenditure, subsidies from state general funds (which are fed partly by sales, income, and property taxes) have become substantial.
QuoteIn Canada, the Federal Government stays out of transportation for the most part. There is no country-wide gas tax, because transportation is left to the provinces and cities. What they have to show for it is a 10% NATIONWIDE transit modal share, decent transit in smaller cities, frequent transit to every part of the larger Metropolitan areas, and overall financial resiliency. What bus routes where you live run every 3 minutes at 3pm, let alone 3 am (http://www.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=320N&Stop=n.b._on_YONGE_at_CARLTON)! You don't get such amazingly good service by spending all your money pouring concrete, you get it by giving your customers what they want, which is service.
I don't think it is actually true that Canada has no federal fuel tax. My understanding is that it does and the Canadians do not even attempt to dedicate the revenues to transportation. I also think climate plays a large role in Canada's higher transit modal share because large American cities in northern states with hard winters, such as Chicago and Milwaukee, have comparably high transit modal shares as well as hard cores of residents who don't drive.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
It was MUCH WORSE than that before the MUTCD was adopted. Signage between states wan't just a little different - it was completely unrecognizable! It would be as if one state used US style signs and the state next door used European signs.
Quote from: deanej on June 16, 2012, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
It was MUCH WORSE than that before the MUTCD was adopted. Signage between states wan't just a little different - it was completely unrecognizable! It would be as if one state used US style signs and the state next door used European signs.
If only our drivers had to pass actual tests, we could adopt European signs and people would understand them.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
Yeah, and that process usually involves the populace growing intolerant of ghastly traffic fatality rates.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 16, 2012, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on June 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PMDifferent colored signs in different states would probably not be the result of a states only transportation policy, because there is value in some standardization between states. What may happen is some states may decide to make toll-road signs all purple at the decision point, or some state may decide to make the area around an airport logo blue, etc.
This already happens to an extent with federal funding participation, since only substantial (not absolute) conformity is required, and some rather large excursions from national standards are tolerated since FHWA tends to pursue a "low-hanging fruit first" approach.
True, there can be substantial variation between states.
Quote
QuoteSure, you may say that states can experiment, they just have to do it through the FHWA. Do you know how much paperwork and time it takes for a city to color the bike lanes at conflict points, like has been done in Europe for half a century? Federal bureaucracy has its cost in time, lives, and money.
Some aspects of the process have been streamlined ... evidence-based policy development. (There is, in fact, an ongoing TCD pooled fund study.)
Bike lane coloring was just the first example that came to mind. While there is an interim approval process, it takes plenty of time and plenty of consultants (read: money) to do something that is currently done in other cities or countries.
Quote
QuoteI see the 18.4 cent gas tax we are sending up to Washington, and wonder why the hell Washington has to even get involved at all! We send our tax up to them, they spend it on other things, and then we have to fight based on how many favored politicians we elect just to get back a few pennies. Not only do we get back pennies of what we put in, it comes back with plenty of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense.
Lets do a little math. ... all from eliminating Federal Government meddling in transportation.
Your math is just flat-out wrong. ... subsidies from state general funds (which are fed partly by sales, income, and property taxes) have become substantial.
If I had more accurate numbers for the state level, I would use them.
Even if transportation funding were "evenly" distributed, the underlying point still remains. Why the hell does the federal government even have to get involved at all? We send our money to them, they mismanage and waste it, and we have to fight to get pennies back in return.
According to the FY2012 Budget Highlights, (http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/fy2012budgethighlights.pdf) the USDOT has about 9800 non-FAA employees. While some of the employees would have to be retained, and most would be diverted to state-level jobs, a good number of employees don't really do anything that couldn't be accomplished at the state level.
I happened to stumble upon this (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/23/this-is-really-pathetic/#comment-124111) a while back, and while obviously a comment on an online blog isn't the best of sources for policy decisions, he did take the time to go through every DOT program. My thoughts on eliminating the DOT are roughly similar to his, so instead of going through the list one-by-one I linked to the initial review. Basically, the DOT is a lot of bacon on a pulled pork sandwich.
Quote
QuoteIn Canada, the Federal Government stays out of transportation ... what they want, which is service.
I don't think it is actually true that Canada has no federal fuel tax. ... hard cores of residents who don't drive.
As far as I am concerned, there is no difference with transportation policy if there is no fuel tax or a fuel tax to fund healthcare or education.
Weather probably only plays a small role in transportation decisions, though excessive cold would prompt people to favor cars over transit. The examples you give of Chicago and Milwaukee might have something to do with higher rates of poverty than compatible cities in North America. If people are too poor to afford cars, then they will end up using transit regardless of if they like it or not.
Perhaps you had other constraints, but I find it interesting that you didn't reply to the part of my post about ODOT and the BRT system in Fort Collins. I would be interested in reading what thoughts you may have on those topics.
The federal government manages roads because historically the states have proven themselves incapable of doing so. Before the US Route system, for example, rural areas had no postal service because the roads were so bad.
Do you really want to return to the days of turnpikes ending in cow fields because one state built their portion of a multi-state road and another couldn't be bothered to fund it?
Quote from: Zmapper on June 20, 2012, 09:21:25 PMBike lane coloring was just the first example that came to mind. While there is an interim approval process, it takes plenty of time and plenty of consultants (read: money) to do something that is currently done in other cities or countries.
The point is, after agencies go through this process, they are left with something that they know works. The efficacy of bike lane coloring is unproven, which is one reason it is left unregulated in countries like the UK.
If you know what works and what doesn't, you can avoid spending scarce resource on things that don't work: that is the main justification for a formal testing and approval process.
QuoteEven if transportation funding were "evenly" distributed, the underlying point still remains. Why the hell does the federal government even have to get involved at all? We send our money to them, they mismanage and waste it, and we have to fight to get pennies back in return.
According to the FY2012 Budget Highlights, (http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/fy2012budgethighlights.pdf) the USDOT has about 9800 non-FAA employees. While some of the employees would have to be retained, and most would be diverted to state-level jobs, a good number of employees don't really do anything that couldn't be accomplished at the state level.
Better than 90% revenue recovery from the federal gas tax for the vast majority of states is hardly "pennies"--that alone amounts to about $50 billion a year--and since it is settled law, it is not something that has to be fought for.
9800 employees for USDOT outside FAA is not large in comparison to typical state DOT employment numbers, which are around 3,000 for state DOTs responsible only for a primary state highway system, and quite a bit higher (up to 6,000 or more) for DOTs which have to handle a secondary state highway system as well.
QuoteI happened to stumble upon this (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/23/this-is-really-pathetic/#comment-124111) a while back, and while obviously a comment on an online blog isn't the best of sources for policy decisions, he did take the time to go through every DOT program.
Actually, no, he didn't. He picked strings from the USDOT alphabet soup and wrote a scommatic paragraph on each--hardly in-depth analysis. Aside from the obvious bias (evident not just from the text itself but also its location on Redstate.com), he does not distinguish between the functions of regulator and service provider.
QuoteAs far as I am concerned, there is no difference with transportation policy if there is no fuel tax or a fuel tax to fund healthcare or education.
In terms of service provision the distinction is probably unimportant, but it is one that has to be made if you see the "user pays" principle as a key part of ensuring that transportation is adequately funded.
QuoteWeather probably only plays a small role in transportation decisions, though excessive cold would prompt people to favor cars over transit. The examples you give of Chicago and Milwaukee might have something to do with higher rates of poverty than compatible cities in North America. If people are too poor to afford cars, then they will end up using transit regardless of if they like it or not.
I don't agree. Large cities like Chicago and Milwaukee tend to have dense cores with professionally trained or high-income apartment dwellers for whom the cost and trouble of parking or storing a car tend to outweigh the benefits of being able to travel in areas poorly supplied with transit. In the winter after a major snowfall, it is easier to walk through deep snow to a bus stop which is on a bus route which receives priority snow removal than it is to get into a car which can easily get stuck in drifts on uncleared back roads. Winterization of cars also imposes significant cost and effort burdens in Canada's climate since Canada is snow-tire, engine-block-heater country.
QuotePerhaps you had other constraints, but I find it interesting that you didn't reply to the part of my post about ODOT and the BRT system in Fort Collins. I would be interested in reading what thoughts you may have on those topics.
I didn't say anything about Oregon DOT because I don't know enough about their spending priorities to comment in detail on the relative merits of rest area renovation versus bike lanes. I also didn't say anything about BRT in Fort Collins because I know too little about what it is supposed to do in terms of improving local transportation.
It is all well and good to argue that if we were designing the transportation funding system from scratch, it would be more efficient to leave the oversight (as well as the service provision) functions to the state DOTs. But to introduce such a system now would mean paying some costs to convert from the current system of federal oversight, which developed in part because some state DOTs have historically been very corrupt, while other regulated providers of transportation services (such as local bus companies) have openly engaged in price-fixing, cartel or monopoly formation, and racial discrimination. Granting the point that federal involvement leads to undesired consequences at the local level, such as inappropriate goldplating combined with exclusion of workable options, are we really better served if waste of money at the federal level is substituted with waste of money at the state level? Why should waste smell better if it is generated by the state DOT rather than USDOT? If you accept the point that waste is waste and should be avoided, regardless of which agency is responsible, how do you ensure that state DOTs avoid it while paying appropriate attention to legitimate national interests?
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 21, 2012, 11:45:17 AM
The point is, after agencies go through this process, they are left with something that they know works.
Not quite. Staying on the topic of bike lanes, AASHTO's guide allows door-zone bike lanes: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/AASHTO_DZBL.pdf
So no one has heard any rumors of a representative inserting a new interstate into this bill yet?
Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 21, 2012, 11:45:17 AM
The point is, after agencies go through this process, they are left with something that they know works.
Not quite. Staying on the topic of bike lanes, AASHTO's guide allows door-zone bike lanes: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/AASHTO_DZBL.pdf
When a state wants to do better and innovate, they are obviously too stupid and corrupt to be able to do so. But when the amazing Federal Government rubber-stamps blatantly dangerous designs, they must be respected and implemented, for our federal government overlords from 2000 miles away surely know better then we munchkins do.
Yea, that makes a whole lot of sense...
Actually AASHTO is the states. Go troll yourself.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 21, 2012, 11:45:17 AM
It is all well and good to argue that if we were designing the transportation funding system from scratch, it would be more efficient to leave the oversight (as well as the service provision) functions to the state DOTs.
Agreed, and that is probably one of the biggest hurdles to overcome if the USDOT were to be removed. To me, the slight cost is worth it in the long run.
QuoteBut to introduce such a system now would mean paying some costs to convert from the current system of federal oversight, which developed in part because some state DOTs have historically been very corrupt, while other regulated providers of transportation services (such as local bus companies) have openly engaged in price-fixing, cartel or monopoly formation, and racial discrimination.
State DOTs are still somewhat corrupt and "stuck in the old days", but part of the problem may be in how funding is distributed. If the Federal Government gives your state $40 Billion for transportation, it is not like you have a blank check in the bank to go spend on anything related to transportation. Instead, the $40 Billion would be earmarked and specifically directed towards whatever Congress feels like is a priority.
Lets go back to 1950. Your state could build one of those new Interstate highways you have been reading about. Not only would the highway cut travel time across the city by half, if you build it through an "undesirable" neighborhood you could clean up that part of the city as well. It isn't like "real" people live in the city anymore, because they all packed up for the brand new suburbs like Levittown, NY or Greenbelt, MD.
Of course, people didn't like the freeway coming through their neighborhood. Freeways are noisy, polluting, ugly, environmentally destructive, etc. The natural result is people organized against the new freeway for various reasons. In a federalist society with local control, the freeway could have possibly been voted down, and the neighborhood in question would still be standing. Sure, the people that ditched to the suburbs might not like the outcome much, but they weren't paying taxes in the city anyway.
Fast forward to 1956. Eisenhower just signed the Interstate Highway Act, and your city is slated to receive an E-W and N-S freeway, plus a circular bypass. You don't want freeways in the central city? Tough, national "needs" dictate that it must be built. Besides, the federal government will cover 90% of the cost, so it is like you will get a full freeway for only 10% of the cost. The end result is the freeway gets built, the neighborhood deteriorates further, people are pushed out to the suburbs, etc.
What happened there is you paid for 100%, because the other 90% that came from the federal government actually came from you in the form of taxation. By having the government decide how your city will spend your money, you remove local control and potentially force environmentally undesirable results. What would have likely happened if local control existed would be the cancellation of most or all of the N-S and E-W freeways, but the building of the circular bypass. Through traffic can still get around the region, but they just have to add 5-10 miles to a 1000 mile trip. The central neighborhoods would still be intact, and people could still get places. They just couldn't fly through old neighborhoods at 55mph oblivious to the people below. The alleged state or city DOT corruption is actually a result of funding trickery and the federal government involvement.
---
This is 2012, and while it is important to keep in mind the past, racism and the other -isms have pretty much been stomped out. Honestly, when is the last time a bus driver wouldn't let a peaceful paying passenger board because he was Mexican, Black, Italian, etc? Transportation monopolies are another relic of the past, that could not occur again in the modern age. Back in 1910 your small town had exactly two options for transportation; Southern Pacific or walking. In 2012 your small town still has the railroad, but if they start getting greedy you could take the bus, a puddle jumper flight, or drive/hitchhike.
QuoteGranting the point that federal involvement leads to undesired consequences at the local level, such as inappropriate goldplating combined with exclusion of workable options, are we really better served if waste of money at the federal level is substituted with waste of money at the state level? Why should waste smell better if it is generated by the state DOT rather than USDOT? If you accept the point that waste is waste and should be avoided, regardless of which agency is responsible, how do you ensure that state DOTs avoid it while paying appropriate attention to legitimate national interests?
Gold plating is my biggest problem with the federal government involving, because it leads to cases like San Jose building the federally subsidized "Toonerville Trolley" light rail while cutting local bus service by 35%. I don't hate the concept of rail or busways, but when agencies build them while cutting local bus service it can lead to very poor overall results.
Another form of gold plating would be in project scope. Sure, you could just tear up ~20 feet of the center part of the road and slap down some tracks if you want light rail, but if "other people" are paying for it, why not rebuild the whole street? Suddenly the light rail project becomes a light rail/new pavement/artwork/urban revitalization/fancy sidewalks project.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 26, 2012, 04:21:06 AM
This is 2012, and while it is important to keep in mind the past, racism and the other -isms have pretty much been stomped out. Honestly, when is the last time a bus driver wouldn't let a peaceful paying passenger board because he was Mexican, Black, Italian, etc?
Not a bus, but a plane:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/masudur-rahman-mohamed-za_n_858823.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/19/muslim-men-to-sue-airlines-after-allegedly-being-kicked-off-flight/
Wrecked.
Congress passed a two-year extension (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/politics/congress-approves-transportation-and-student-loan-package.html) today:
Quote
Congress gave final approval on Friday to legislation that combines a two-year transportation measure with bills to extend subsidized student loans and revamp federal flood insurance, wrapping up a bruising session with measures that will be popular on the campaign trail .... The House passed it by 373 to 52, the Senate by 74 to 19. All the no votes were by Republicans.
"When all is said and done, this bill is what it is," said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a West Virginia Democrat who was one of the senior negotiators. "It means jobs." .... The transportation legislation extends federal highway, rail and transit programs for 27 months, authorizing $120 billion in spending, financed by the existing 18.4 cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4 cents-a-gallon diesel tax, as well as about $19 billion in transfers from the Treasury .... The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One that the measure was a "good, bipartisan" deal and that the president looked forward to signing it.
Here's the text of the bill (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120625/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348ih.pdf).
Quote from: Zmapper on June 26, 2012, 04:21:06 AM
This is 2012, and while it is important to keep in mind the past, racism and the other -isms have pretty much been stomped out.
I read this, and I tried really, really hard to ignore the troll, but I just can't. I mean, seriously? Not only is this statement completely and utterly false, but also completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the rest of your post.
Are you calling me a troll? Seriously? Considering I have been an active member for about 2 years, I am honestly offended. I may advocate an opposing viewpoint, but that my no means makes me a troll.
Again, when is the last time you have seen a "whites only" sign or other blatant racism? Okay, there are a few bad apples in a county of 300 million, but racism is pretty much gone by now. I included that statement as a reply to JN Winkler's remark about how state DOT's had a history of being racist. I don't deny the past that they may have racial intentions, but while there may be a few bad apples inside the DOT, as a whole they are colorblind.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 30, 2012, 12:32:32 AM
Are you calling me a troll? Seriously? Considering I have been an active member for about 2 years, I am honestly offended. I may advocate an opposing viewpoint, but that my no means makes me a troll.
Again, when is the last time you have seen a "whites only" sign or other blatant racism? Okay, there are a few bad apples in a county of 300 million, but racism is pretty much gone by now. I included that statement as a reply to JN Winkler's remark about how state DOT's had a history of being racist. I don't deny the past that they may have racial intentions, but while there may be a few bad apples inside the DOT, as a whole they are colorblind.
Racism is far from dead, but overt racism has been mostly erased.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 16, 2012, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on June 15, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.
For the same reason everyone who posts on here uses the same font, size, and color.
I'm not sure that is a valid conclusion; I just usually post the same because I don't want to take the time changing the font, while for a state to deviate from the national norm all they have to do is write a new standard specification.
Quote from: Zmapper on June 30, 2012, 12:32:32 AMAgain, when is the last time you have seen a "whites only" sign or other blatant racism? Okay, there are a few bad apples in a county of 300 million, but racism is pretty much gone by now. I included that statement as a reply to JN Winkler's remark about how state DOT's had a history of being racist. I don't deny the past that they may have racial intentions, but while there may be a few bad apples inside the DOT, as a whole they are colorblind.
Actually, I did not say that state DOTs (or their predecessor agencies) had a history of being racist; instead, I made that observation in relation to regulated transportation providers like bus companies and railroads. In the case of state DOTs the historical record is actually rather mixed. State DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent. These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia. On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class. The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind: think of the title character in
Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.
It is a fundamental part of the common-carrier obligation of regulated transportation providers that they will carry the traffic offered without fear or favor. This is why Norman Mineta, USDOT secretary during 9/11 and one of the
nisei subjected to forced resettlement during World War II, reminded the airlines that they were not to discriminate against Muslims or anyone else when he re-opened American airspace for civilian travel.
Quote from: Steve on June 30, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
Racism is far from dead, but overt racism has been mostly erased.
So too, I would assert, is institutionalized racism.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PMState DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent. These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia. On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class. The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind...
Talk about some wild-assed and overly generalized and stereotyping statements...
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Actually, I did not say that state DOTs (or their predecessor agencies) had a history of being racist; instead, I made that observation in relation to regulated transportation providers like bus companies and railroads. In the case of state DOTs the historical record is actually rather mixed. State DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent.
Increasingly, low-level hourly labor, even at state DOTs, is provided by the private sector. Virginia DOT uses private companies to maintain very nearly all of its Interstate system these days. Quite a few "laborers" working for Maryland SHA are actually employed by private-sector firms.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.
Recruitment for public-sector civil service jobs is generally done without regard to skin color or (in many states) sexual preference.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class. The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind: think of the title character in Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.
Have you considered that many of those jobs require a college education? In some cases a graduate degree?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2012, 05:36:48 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PMThese attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.
Recruitment for public-sector civil service jobs is generally done without regard to skin color or (in many states) sexual preference.
The obligation not to discriminate attaches to the state DOT that does the hiring, not to the employees that are hired, and it requires continuing personnel management to ensure that any latent prejudices recruits bring into the organization do not blossom into a hostile working environment.
BTW, I wouldn't recommend referring to sexual orientation as "sexual preference."
QuoteQuote from: J N Winkler on June 30, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class. The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind: think of the title character in Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.
Have you considered that many of those jobs require a college education? In some cases a graduate degree?
Yup. That is actually my point. The minimum qualification for engineering-related positions at most state DOTs is a BSCE. For other white-collar non-engineering positions a bachelor's degree tends to be required as well. The people who meet these qualifications have managed to find the resources to go to college
and finish a four-year college degree, and therefore have at least one foot in the middle class if they are not themselves middle-class.
Hey has anyone had a chance to actually read the bill, if so are there any surprises or significant changes in it?
Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 30, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
Hey has anyone had a chance to actually read the bill, if so are there any surprises or significant changes in it?
There is this:
Quote
"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
I interpret that as cutting AASHTO out of the loop on Interstate designations. I mean, I guess FHWA could still require AASHTO to sign off on anything first before they'll okay it, but it reads like if FHWA wishes they can just sign off on it, and then it becomes an Interstate.
EDIT: More interesting stuff: I-11 has been given the I-99 treatment and has been written into law.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2012, 09:34:46 PM
There is this:
Quote
"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
So, if the USDOT Secretary (with the suggestion of the KDOT secretary) decides that US 69 between KC and Fort Scott makes sense to receive an interstate designation, we could see a I-535 or I-149 in Kansas? ;)
I wanted to touch on the argument that Milwaukee and Chicago have high transit ridership just like Toronto. I use boardings-per-capita because that statistic considers not only work trips, but also school, shopping, and all other trips. To figure out this statistic you take the annual ridership of the transit agency you are looking at and divide that by the number of residences in the city or region.
While researching, I see that someone already did the work for me: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4066462&postcount=15
Toronto has 181 boardings, Chicago has 78, and Milwaukee has 38. Not... even... close...
The most likely reason for this has to do with the suburbs. Toronto has divided transit agencies that only focus on their area, which makes it easier to service all areas. The TTC can focus on Toronto, and run service most appropriate to an inter-city region. Mississauga, Brampton, YRT, and DRT can focus on their decent sized urban areas, which means that all suburbs get transit service useful to them.
In a transit-friendly city, 25% or so of all jobs are in the CBD. Sure, those 25% are the easiest to service, but it is the 75% of jobs not in the CBD that matter. If you only focus on one-fourth of the total market, you will only capture one-fourth of your possible ridership. Toronto makes it easy to access your suburban job, first by actually servicing your job location, and second by running a grid system so that you can get anywhere-to-anywhere in a tolerable amount of time. Transit agencies in the US either don't service the suburbs at all, or they run a 7a-7p M-F service only useful as a senior lifeline.
A Melbourne based transit advocacy group has written more on this: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density.shtml Basically, if your city is big enough to have traffic congestion, it is big enough to have useful public transit.
EDIT: Ames, IA, the large transit-mecca that everyone knows about, where Democrats are always elected and cars are banned, has a per-capita ridership of about 105. You don't need to be a world city to have a functioning transit system that attracts riders.