Washington Post: Nation's highways remain an issue for an Obama second term (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nations-highways-remain-an-issue-for-an-obama-second-term/2012/11/11/3ea13a50-2c12-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html)
QuoteThe next U.S. transportation secretary – whether it's Ray LaHood or someone else – will confront a highway system starved for cash and financed by a gasoline tax almost no one wants to raise.
QuoteHow President Obama and his transportation leader respond may set the course for decades. Besides shoring up highways and transit systems vital to the economy, the president's second term may provide another chance for him to push his vision for high-speed passenger rail, which was stalled by Congress' refusal to keep paying for it.
QuoteTalks between the White House and Congress to avoid Dec. 31's "fiscal cliff," when some tax cuts expire and automatic spending reductions are set to kick in, won't have transportation as a main focus. Yet the last two gasoline-tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, only happened because of deficit- reduction deals, said Mort Downey, a former deputy transportation secretary who's a senior adviser at Parsons Brinckerhoff.
I get shivers whenever I read Ray LaHood's name.
Besides, the gas tax is bound to go up anyway. And Congress will pay dearly for its not continuing to pay for that high-speed rail project.
Raising gas tax to levels we have here in Europe will go a long way to funding a first class transport network. That's if all the tax is spent on transport and not used to finance other government departments.
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.
I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.
But - there would be
immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently
large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.
That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.
I would oppose tolling all high-grade roads, since it would have the effect of pushing traffic onto lower grades of roads that are inherently less safe and less well suited for large volumes of traffic. This would have the effect of increasing the cost of the system while making it less efficient and more dangerous.
My larger disagreement, though, is philosophical. I disagree with the idea that you don't benefit from a road unless you actually drive on it. A person who drives only on city streets still benefits from the state highway system if he buys things shipped on the highways. While I've never driven anywhere on I-80, I'm pretty sure I've bought something that contained corn that was shipped more efficiently (and cheaply) because of a trucker driving on I-80. If $15 of the fuel taxes I've paid have ended up on I-80, I'd call it a reasonable investment for more cheaply shipped goods.
If we want to move into the 21st Century and ensure equitable user payments, we need to track where every vehicle goes and charge the owners for the exact roads used. We'd lose all travel privacy, and it's my guess that the proportionate burden of the cost wouldn't change much for most people, but the total cost would get bigger because of the high cost of all the equipment and information processing. I would be in favor, though, of vehicle mileage taxes based solely on miles, and not roads used, to compensate for variable fuel economy and non-fossil fuel vehicles.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.
That's not true everywhere.
I wouldn't have any problem with a slight increase in the federal gas tax, between a penny and a nickel.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2012, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.
That's not true everywhere.
It is certainly not true in Virginia, where the state secondary highway system includes very nearly every subdivision street (except for those belonging to private homeowners and condominium associations) in heavily developed counties like Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Stafford, Spotsylvania and Chesterfield. Even in municipalities and the two Virginia counties that maintain their own secondary roads, the state provides funding on a per-mile basis.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2012, 05:11:50 PM
I wouldn't have any problem with a slight increase in the federal gas tax, between a penny and a nickel.
I would want more significant reform.
For one, I am in favor of allowing heavier gross weight limits for trucks (but requiring more axles to carry that weight) on most of the national highway system, and to go with that, I want more and more-extensive weight and safety (MCSAP) enforcement.
Second, tolling of existing freeway capacity should be encouraged, as long as the revenue benefits the people and companies paying the tolls (in other words, diverting enormous amounts of the toll revenue to favored (and far-away) transit systems, as Pennsylvania was proposing to do with the toll revenue collected from I-80 users, should not be allowed).
Third, truckers should not have to pay fuel tax miles on public and private toll roads.
And states that have transportation policies that deliberately cause congestion should be put at risk of having federal funding for transit and highways reduced, though I don't mind congestion taxes being imposed to provide economic feedback to users in congested areas.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Say what? Those who drive a lot on Interstate Highways usually are travelling long distances and using the most gasoline, and if anything, they are the ones who are subsidizing the rest of the roads.
Even if local users are subsidizing highways they don't use, who is to say the nation doesn't benefit from a strong network of freeways due to lower costs and more efficient operation for shipping.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2012, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.
That's not true everywhere.
It is certainly not true in Virginia, where the state secondary highway system includes very nearly every subdivision street (except for those belonging to private homeowners and condominium associations) in heavily developed counties like Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Stafford, Spotsylvania and Chesterfield. Even in municipalities and the two Virginia counties that maintain their own secondary roads, the state provides funding on a per-mile basis.
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/faq-2ndaryroads.asp
QuoteIn addition to rural addition funds, eligible counties may also finance the cost of improving qualifying roads with funds from:
* The county's general fund
* A special assessment of the land owners served
* Revenue derived from the sale of bonds
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.
I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.
But - there would be immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.
That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.
Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.
From a transit perspective, having a 'slush fund' from road tolls is an invitation for limited oversight, corruption, and poor management. Slush funds are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44. Pennsylvania contributes half of the total operating costs for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, while Colorado contributes near-zero to RTD. Federal funding is a key reason why RTD, and other agencies, push forward with rail expansions while cutting bus service at the same time.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Steep and twisty streets are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44.
I can pull guesses out of my ass too.
And signs. They are also an issue still as far as transportation needs go.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 09:09:27 AM
Washington Post: Nation's highways remain an issue for an Obama second term (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nations-highways-remain-an-issue-for-an-obama-second-term/2012/11/11/3ea13a50-2c12-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html)
QuoteThe next U.S. transportation secretary – whether it's Ray LaHood or someone else – will confront a highway system starved for cash and financed by a gasoline tax almost no one wants to raise.
QuoteHow President Obama and his transportation leader respond may set the course for decades. Besides shoring up highways and transit systems vital to the economy, the president's second term may provide another chance for him to push his vision for high-speed passenger rail, which was stalled by Congress' refusal to keep paying for it.
QuoteTalks between the White House and Congress to avoid Dec. 31's "fiscal cliff," when some tax cuts expire and automatic spending reductions are set to kick in, won't have transportation as a main focus. Yet the last two gasoline-tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, only happened because of deficit- reduction deals, said Mort Downey, a former deputy transportation secretary who's a senior adviser at Parsons Brinckerhoff.
i think the cost of all that oversight is causing the pittsburgh buses to be more $$$.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.
Actually, according to sources cited by the Antiplanner (http://ti.org/antiplanner/), some of the worst transit union abuses in the United States can be found at Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met (example here (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/05/trimet_workers_management_appe.html)) - rather far from the East Coast.
And while the transit unions do have some clout in New York City and Philadelphia, I am not sure how much of that power extends to Albany and Harrisburg, respectively. One of Philadelphia transit labor's best friends in Harrisburg, former state Sen. Vincent Fumo (one of the architects of the scheme to toll I-80 in Pennsylvania for the benefit of unionized transit workers) is now serving a multi-year sentence in federal prison after being convicted of corruption charges.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
From a transit perspective, having a 'slush fund' from road tolls is an invitation for limited oversight, corruption, and poor management. Slush funds are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44. Pennsylvania contributes half of the total operating costs for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, while Colorado contributes near-zero to RTD. Federal funding is a key reason why RTD, and other agencies, push forward with rail expansions while cutting bus service at the same time.
Slush funds are what some call "dedicated funding for transit" (it can also be called public funding of transit with no oversight).
One of the keys to getting transit operating expenses under control is (in my opinion) contracting with the private sector to deliver service. That allows there to be an economic incentive to provide good service to customers, and it removes elected officials from participating in wage and benefit negotiations with unions that represent transit workers. It is my understanding that Denver's RTD has privatized a large part of its operations, while Portland's Tri-Met, Washington's [D.C.] WMATA, Philadelphia's SEPTA, Pittsburgh's Port Authority of Allegheny County, Boston's MBTA and N.Y. MTA have privatized little or nothing of their operations.
WMATA has had what I call "privatization by divestiture," where its local government members have terminated bus service run by WMATA and turned the lines over to county or city-operated services usually run by private-sector contractors at lower cost.
I would like to see more money spent on maintenance than expansion. In places like LA, adding more lanes is useless. It would already take twice as many lanes for freeways to able to the handle traffic now let alone 10 years from now without congestion. As much I want to see new freeways and highways built, I don't see why we should be building more infrastructure we don't have the money to maintain what we have now.
Also, we need to stop sprawl and build more rail. The car is great and all but LA is another prime example of just how inefficient the car is. It takes a 10 lane concrete behemoth that scars the landscape to move the same amount of people a single rail line can do. Even if we didn't factor in pollution the car is just completely inefficient.
Converting existing general lanes to 2+ or even 3+ HOV would also be a way of increasing capacity on existing infrastructure.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.
Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.
I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.
But - there would be immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.
That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.
Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.
Then you'd end up with all of the tolled highways like you're starting to see in Texas. Just bite the bullet and raise the gas tax the few cents it needs to be. Why are we so cheap, yet want everything?
Quote from: wxfree on November 12, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
I would oppose tolling all high-grade roads, since it would have the effect of pushing traffic onto lower grades of roads that are inherently less safe and less well suited for large volumes of traffic. This would have the effect of increasing the cost of the system while making it less efficient and more dangerous.
Boy, did I see the effect of that first hand in China! I took a taxi from the port of Tonggu to Tianjin station; since the taxi was catering to tourist traffic, he remarked in point of fact that we would be taking the expressway (all of which are tolled in China). It took about 45 minutes.
On the return trip, I had to get a taxi at the station with the general populace. There was nothing to indicate that the driver had any intention of taking a toll road, and he spoke no English, nor I any Chinese, so that we could ask him to. We slogged 2 1/2 hours on the surface roads, amongst all manner of conveyances in various states of disrepair, choking on exhaust fumes the whole way while the freeway zoomed overhead with its color-changing LED chase lighting. Clearly, up there was a different world that the common citizen had no place in.
(We saw the same effect on the bullet train to Beijing, compared with standard rail travel.)
Granted, the socio-economic structure of the Chinese population tends to amplify the effect. I don't think it would be quite so pronounced here, as a toll highway isn't as far beyond the means of the average U.S. citizen as it is a Chinese one.
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2012, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Steep and twisty streets are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44.
I can pull guesses out of my ass too.
Those numbers came from the National Transit Database (http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm) files for 2011, the most recent year available.
Quote from: rantanamo on November 12, 2012, 11:09:35 PM
Then you'd end up with all of the tolled highways like you're starting to see in Texas. Just bite the bullet and raise the gas tax the few cents it needs to be. Why are we so cheap, yet want everything?
As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 13, 2012, 08:35:54 AM
As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.
Erm, no. Just no. Mass transit is aimed at the poor and people who can't afford to have a car. In cities at least, cars are essentially toys for the rich people who are too good to use transit.
And sure, tolls are voluntary so long as you have a free alternative, but they become mandatory when you start suggesting tolling most or all roads, or even where there is currently a toll on, say, an important river crossing. A toll is "mandatory" to leave Staten Island. A toll is "mandatory" to cross from the Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland or Virginia. A toll is "mandatory" to get to the DFW airport.
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 13, 2012, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 13, 2012, 08:35:54 AM
As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.
Erm, no. Just no. Mass transit is aimed at the poor and people who can't afford to have a car. In cities at least, cars are essentially toys for the rich people who are too good to use transit.
And sure, tolls are voluntary so long as you have a free alternative, but they become mandatory when you start suggesting tolling most or all roads, or even where there is currently a toll on, say, an important river crossing. A toll is "mandatory" to leave Staten Island. A toll is "mandatory" to cross from the Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland or Virginia. A toll is "mandatory" to get to the DFW airport.
Unfortunately, transit isn't available for many trips, especially outside of dense east coast city centers. What is someone supposed to do if their job starts at Midnight yet transit stops running at 9?
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.
Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.
Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.
Was just about to point this out.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 13, 2012, 08:35:54 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2012, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 12, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Steep and twisty streets are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44.
I can pull guesses out of my ass too.
Those numbers came from the National Transit Database (http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm) files for 2011, the most recent year available.
Whoosh. I'm talking about your guesses as to why it costs more to run Pittsburgh buses.
Quote from: wxfree on November 12, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
If we want to move into the 21st Century and ensure equitable user payments, we need to track where every vehicle goes and charge the owners for the exact roads used. We'd lose all travel privacy
And that is exactly why this is a VERY bad idea!
QuoteI would be in favor, though, of vehicle mileage taxes based solely on miles, and not roads used, to compensate for variable fuel economy and non-fossil fuel vehicles.
But then those of use who live in high-tax states such as NY won't be able to game the system by re-fueling in low-tax states any more!
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Mm, kind of. China is the cautionary example given by those who oppose such aspirations, while the people who do advocate them (barring certain extreme leftist fringe groups, that is) tend to be picturing Canada or certain European countries, or at least some idealized variation of our own country. Of course, there isn't anywhere near the political will at the moment to shift our basic governmental philosophy so far that it resembles much of any country other than the U.S.A., so it's going to remain a purely academic argument for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 13, 2012, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.
Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.
Was just about to point this out.
And the democratic party
doesn't do this? Oh please, both parties pick winners and losers to subsidize.
But the command and control economy is exactly what the present administration would love to emulate. What they're lacking is enough of a populace who is willing to work that hard for peanuts. Hence, adjustments to policy must be made.
Quote from: Zmapper on November 13, 2012, 11:07:39 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 13, 2012, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on November 13, 2012, 08:35:54 AM
As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.
Erm, no. Just no. Mass transit is aimed at the poor and people who can't afford to have a car. In cities at least, cars are essentially toys for the rich people who are too good to use transit.
And sure, tolls are voluntary so long as you have a free alternative, but they become mandatory when you start suggesting tolling most or all roads, or even where there is currently a toll on, say, an important river crossing. A toll is "mandatory" to leave Staten Island. A toll is "mandatory" to cross from the Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland or Virginia. A toll is "mandatory" to get to the DFW airport.
Unfortunately, transit isn't available for many trips, especially outside of dense east coast city centers. What is someone supposed to do if their job starts at Midnight yet transit stops running at 9?
Yes, and the vast majority of peoples' jobs don't start at midnight. Transit should not cater to the tiny minority of people who work atypical schedules, it should cater to the vast majority of people who work 9 to 5 (or 8 to 4 or 7 to 3, you get the idea).
Also, what transit system shuts down at 9? I've never heard of one shutting down THAT early. And even if it does, there are other (albeit somewhat more difficult) ways to get to work, like a bicycle, your feet, or a taxi.
Finally, what is with your grudge against east coast cities? The #3 busiest rapid transit system in the US is not on the east coast, it's in Chicago. And #5 is San Francisco. The #2 busiest bus system is Los Angeles, and #3 is Chicago and #5 San Francisco. Seattle's also in the top ten. Commuter rail's the same thing, Chicago is #2 and both San Francisco and Los Angeles are in the top ten. The #2 (LA), 3 (SF), 4 (Portland), 6 (San Diego), 7 (Dallas), 8 (Denver), 9 (Salt Lake), 10 (St Louis), 11 (Sacramento), and 12 (Phoenix) (out of 35) busiest light rail systems are all on the west coast.
Ten of the top
twelve.
So please stop with your biased, misinformed assumptions that only people on the east coast take public transit.
[All rankings taken from Wikipedia]
Quote from: empirestate on November 13, 2012, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Mm, kind of. China is the cautionary example given by those who oppose such aspirations, while the people who do advocate them (barring certain extreme leftist fringe groups, that is) tend to be picturing Canada or certain European countries, or at least some idealized variation of our own country. Of course, there isn't anywhere near the political will at the moment to shift our basic governmental philosophy so far that it resembles much of any country other than the U.S.A., so it's going to remain a purely academic argument for the foreseeable future.
Agreed for the most part. However, our national direction does seem to be more radical than that of Canada or Germany, so we may land to their left if this trend continues. That said, the China example was merely illustrative of the extreme. Hey, at least I didn't use the DPRK as my example.... :biggrin:
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 13, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Commuter rail's the same thing, Chicago is #2 and both San Francisco and Los Angeles are in the top ten. The #2 (LA), 3 (SF), 4 (Portland), 6 (San Diego), 7 (Dallas), 8 (Denver), 9 (Salt Lake), 10 (St Louis), 11 (Sacramento), and 12 (Phoenix) (out of 35) busiest light rail systems are all on the west coast. Ten of the top twelve.
So please stop with your biased, misinformed assumptions that only people on the east coast take public transit.
[All rankings taken from Wikipedia]
Salt Lake City has built a wonderful mass transit system. Very clean, simple and efficient. They're now fleshing out a new commuter rail system. Oddly, what's old is new again as the concept of interurban trains between Ogden->Salt Lake->Provo was one that died in the 1950s and is only now seeing a rebirth. I think it's wonderful.
Likewise, other cities such as Denver, San Diego and Sacramento have fine light rail systems that are popular and well-utilized. Not to mention the BART/Muni combo in the Bay Area. I didn't think Seattle had much of a R/T system yet, so that's a new one to me. But your point is very well taken that the stereotype of mass transit being a province of northeastern cities is very out-of-date and inaccurate.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 13, 2012, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Mm, kind of. China is the cautionary example given by those who oppose such aspirations, while the people who do advocate them (barring certain extreme leftist fringe groups, that is) tend to be picturing Canada or certain European countries, or at least some idealized variation of our own country. Of course, there isn't anywhere near the political will at the moment to shift our basic governmental philosophy so far that it resembles much of any country other than the U.S.A., so it's going to remain a purely academic argument for the foreseeable future.
Agreed for the most part. However, our national direction does seem to be more radical than that of Canada or Germany, so we may land to their left if this trend continues. That said, the China example was merely illustrative of the extreme. Hey, at least I didn't use the DPRK as my example.... :biggrin:
"Radical" depends a lot on one's observation and experience. To me, the values promoted by the typical left are merely extensions of those I already see practiced in my personal life as well as at my local government level. After all, my local government is that of New York City, which takes on a huge amount of responsibility providing for the welfare of its citizens (and please don't misinterpret "welfare" as applying only to the poor). I grew up in a smaller city, but the same type of ethic was readily apparent.
Now whether such values ought to be extended to the national government is a highly valid discussion, since much of the nation isn't a city. And of course, if your life situation has not been one where a dense community is the norm, these values will seem unusual to you. But to say that they're "radical" in the sense of highly deviant from the mainstream, doesn't turn out to be a very accurate descriptor when our society is taken as a whole.
In short, while it may seem obvious, our problem is that we have approximately equal numbers of two distinct kinds of people, and the two groups tend not to meet each other as often as you'd expect. That said, it turns out that we all agree an most things to a surprising extent, provided of course that you don't mention any specifics. :-)
Anyway, in hopes of keeping on topic at least a little, I will reiterate what a striking experience it was to visit China, and the mixed impression it gave me. One the one hand, I wondered why such a potent nation as the U.S. couldn't manage to get something as impressive and efficient as a neon freeway or a bullet train built, or even started, yet at the same time I felt I wouldn't want such a thing if it was to the exclusion of such a large socio-economic percentage of the population. But I never felt that we were actually in danger of such a thing, and simple observation so far continues to bear that out.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 13, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Also, what transit system shuts down at 9? I've never heard of one shutting down THAT early.
Wichita's bus system is done running by 7:15. Chicago's suburban bus system (Pace) shuts down around 6:00 or 7:00 in the outer suburbs, but continues later farther in. Wichita and Chicago are the only two systems I'm very familiar with.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
Salt Lake City has built a wonderful mass transit system. Very clean, simple and efficient. They're now fleshing out a new commuter rail system. Oddly, what's old is new again as the concept of interurban trains between Ogden->Salt Lake->Provo was one that died in the 1950s and is only now seeing a rebirth. I think it's wonderful.
I was once told by a Utah resident, and have read someplace else, that the LDS Church (one of the larger employers in downtown Salt Lake City) has long encouraged its workers and members to use transit when coming to its activities in and around Temple Square, and its leadership has also encouraged government to build more and new transit lines in and around metropolitan Salt Lake City.
Do you agree with that?
Note - I am
not making a statement for (or against) the LDS Church, and I
don't wish to discuss the theology of that faith (or any other faith, for that matter).
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
Likewise, other cities such as Denver, San Diego and Sacramento have fine light rail systems that are popular and well-utilized. Not to mention the BART/Muni combo in the Bay Area. I didn't think Seattle had much of a R/T system yet, so that's a new one to me. But your point is very well taken that the stereotype of mass transit being a province of northeastern cities is very out-of-date and inaccurate.
I agree with most of the above statement. Certainly the original San Diego light rail line from downtown San Diego to San Ysidro was (and remains) a transit success story. As is the BART rail system in the San Francisco Bay Area.
And while the other systems attract some riders, I am
not really convinced that it is a good idea to spend tax dollars on passenger rail systems in most parts of the United States.
Exceptions made for transit improvements in New York City, including the Second Avenue Subway and at least some of the commuter rail improvements under Manhattan.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 13, 2012, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 13, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become
I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow. Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.
Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.
Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.
Was just about to point this out.
And the democratic party doesn't do this? Oh please, both parties pick winners and losers to subsidize.
But the command and control economy is exactly what the present administration would love to emulate. What they're lacking is enough of a populace who is willing to work that hard for peanuts. Hence, adjustments to policy must be made.
Democrats argue for policies that have the effect of creating a flatter, fairer society. Only thru policy can you achieve those ends. Republicans want a roll-back of any such policy, thinking that the flattening of the wage gap will happen organically, solved by the "invisible hand" of the free market. Thirty years of experimenting with trickle-down economics and regressive tax schemes has proven them wrong.
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 05:06:46 PM
the flattening of the wage gap
But is that actually what Conservatives are aiming for? I thought trickle-down was supposed to improve things for both the rich and the poor, not flatten the gap. Then again, I'm no politician or historian.
Trickle-down is supposed to improve things for the rich and convince the poor they don't need anything.
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
If you want to talk about what would solve the transportation funding issues that's fine, but getting into a discussion about which party wants what economic vision is way off base and is just going to lead to some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about. If you want to discuss that, there are plenty of other forums about it that I don't have to moderate. Use one of them.
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2012, 05:45:00 PM
Trickle-down is supposed to improve things for the rich and convince the poor they don't need anything.
That's not the idea. But it is the worst system out there......except for ALL of the others. "Equaling" things out never works, all you end up with is a poorer middle class, the same lower class and an insulated upper class with government connections.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
THANK YOU! I agree.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about.
As opposed to some stupid flame war about something this forum is about (baa).
I do see a connection between the middle of the country electing bureaucrats who continually deride the role of government and the decline of our government-run highway system.
It's like employing a chef who hates well-prepared food.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
If you want to talk about what would solve the transportation funding issues that's fine, but getting into a discussion about which party wants what economic vision is way off base and is just going to lead to some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about. If you want to discuss that, there are plenty of other forums about it that I don't have to moderate. Use one of them.
Come on, Scott. They're barely mentioning politics at all. Methinks the moderators wield their hammers way too often and too easily.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
If you want to talk about what would solve the transportation funding issues that's fine, but getting into a discussion about which party wants what economic vision is way off base and is just going to lead to some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about. If you want to discuss that, there are plenty of other forums about it that I don't have to moderate. Use one of them.
Actually, we decided that this forum DOES allow discussion of politics vis-a-vis roads. If the economic policies of the two parties are tied into their positions on highways, we certainly allow that discussion. However, we indeed do not allow discussion of pure politics without a highway angle to it.
Quote from: Steve on November 13, 2012, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
If you want to talk about what would solve the transportation funding issues that's fine, but getting into a discussion about which party wants what economic vision is way off base and is just going to lead to some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about. If you want to discuss that, there are plenty of other forums about it that I don't have to moderate. Use one of them.
Actually, we decided that this forum DOES allow discussion of politics vis-a-vis roads. If the economic policies of the two parties are tied into their positions on highways, we certainly allow that discussion. However, we indeed do not allow discussion of pure politics without a highway angle to it.
+1.
Politics is one of the most discussed topics amongst humans, and it's only natural that some topics are going to drift into political discussion. Banning all political speech is counterproductive.
Quote from: Steve on November 13, 2012, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS
If you want to talk about what would solve the transportation funding issues that's fine, but getting into a discussion about which party wants what economic vision is way off base and is just going to lead to some stupid flame war about something this forum isn't about. If you want to discuss that, there are plenty of other forums about it that I don't have to moderate. Use one of them.
Actually, we decided that this forum DOES allow discussion of politics vis-a-vis roads. If the economic policies of the two parties are tied into their positions on highways, we certainly allow that discussion. However, we indeed do not allow discussion of pure politics without a highway angle to it.
Transportation policy and its subset, highway policy,
are inherently political discussions. I suspect that most members of this forum can name elected officials who have won office (or been defeated) in part thanks to this subject. I sure can.
Robert Moses... oh wait.
Transportation policy is a political subject that is allowed. Trickle-down economics is a political subject that is not allowed.
See the difference?
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 07:49:06 PM
I do see a connection between the middle of the country electing bureaucrats who continually deride the role of government and the decline of our government-run highway system.
It's like employing a chef who hates well-prepared food.
But that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate. Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases. To use your restaurant example, no restaurant industry has more government involvement than Cuba's, yet Cuban cuisine has all but died on the island itself (it really only flourishes outside the country and in establishments where quasi-capitalism exists). What big government has done there is to squelch the competitive drive to make food that actually tastes good and attracts people.
It could be that some privatization of the highway infrastructure (smaller government) might actually yield better roads than heavily subsidizing them (bigger government). I'm not enough of a politician to say that's certainly the case, but I just wanted to throw the notion out there.
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 13, 2012, 07:49:06 PM
I do see a connection between the middle of the country electing bureaucrats who continually deride the role of government and the decline of our government-run highway system.
It's like employing a chef who hates well-prepared food.
But that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate. Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases.
I'm probably the most vocal small-government advocate on this board, or in any of your Facebook feeds :-D and this strikes at my opinions about the subject. I am all for improving transportation infrastructure and building new roads to improve accessibility and mobility, promote economic development and eliminate safety hazards.
As a general philosophy, I believe that government should provide for the general public (roads, national defense, etc.). There is a Constitutional component to roads; in fact providing roads is one of the permitted activities of the federal government. "Post offices and post roads," anyone?
I don't mind paying taxes for services I use. I don't even mind paying taxes for the general welfare; i.e., me paying school taxes even though I have no children. That's why I would have no problem with a slight increase in the gas tax, but only if that revenue is used for roads and not diverted for Obamacare or the EPA or the FDA or elsewhere. I don't think it should be diverted to transit, either. Raise the bus fares a quarter if transit needs money.
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine
Who let Carl Rogers in? :-D
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:59:02 AMBut that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate. Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases. To use your restaurant example, no restaurant industry has more government involvement than Cuba's, yet Cuban cuisine has all but died on the island itself (it really only flourishes outside the country and in establishments where quasi-capitalism exists). What big government has done there is to squelch the competitive drive to make food that actually tastes good and attracts people.
It could be that some privatization of the highway infrastructure (smaller government) might actually yield better roads than heavily subsidizing them (bigger government). I'm not enough of a politician to say that's certainly the case, but I just wanted to throw the notion out there.
I think the choice between US-style capitalism and Cuban-style communism is falsely dichotomous, as it relates either to highways or to food. If by "big government" you mean a country in which the public sector allocates a relatively high proportion of GDP, then a more rigorous way of doing the analysis is to compare like to like (countries where the public sector allocates a high proportion of GDP to each other, and countries where the public sector allocates a low proportion of GDP to each other, with no cross-comparison between the two groups). In the case of communist countries like Cuba and market societies with large public sectors like France and Sweden, this should lead to the intuition that the Cuban economy is much more tightly confined within its technological production frontier because, over the long term at least, resource allocation is much less efficient in a command economy. (Not all of the limitations on the Cuban economy are the Cubans' fault, BTW. Our embargo cuts off gains from trade.)
Put it this way: why use Cuba as a comparator (it seems to be flavor of the month among young American leftists these days, BTW--why is that? Easy access from Florida?) when you can look at France and Sweden and ask how it is they are able to have both great roads
and great food?
Looking more closely at highways, there are certain reasons government tends to emerge as the provider of some types of public services even when the private sector can also provide them:
* In some sectors of the economy, scale effects are at a maximum when there is only one provider as opposed to a collection of small providers. This is particularly true for many types of networked infrastructure, and is why public utilities tend either to be owned or operated directly by the government or are allowed to remain in the private sector after consolidation but are regulated as to rate of return on capital.
* In the highways sector particularly, the act of charging for use of the asset itself reduces usage of the asset and thus the social rate of return that can be expected from it, unless the asset would otherwise be congested. This is the main reason toll roads are considered inefficient when there are free alternatives improved to a high enough standard to compete. (While charging can be eliminated as a source of inefficiency by using a shadow-tolling system, toll roads also need up-front financing and the interest charges associated with this can easily lead to nominal fiscal drag as the loans are paid off.) Charging also ensures that the number of corridors that are considered toll-viable is a small, proper subset of the corridors that will deliver a positive social rate of return if built.
* Investments whose benefits are backloaded or whose short-term annualized rates of return are unattractive to the private sector tend to devolve to the public sector. (Backloading of benefits and low short-term annualized rates of return are characteristic of highways and other forms of durable investment.)
* Institutional reasons sometimes also apply--in most countries, for example, government has continued to be responsible for the roads partly because it was initially the incumbent owner and operator of them.
In regard to the general question of a "grand bargain" for American highways, raising the fuel tax is, I believe, the most fiscally sane short-term way to fund preservation and expansion. Yes, it is a regressive tax, but the regressive effect is quite muted (particularly in the long term) since a tripling of the tax (as has been recommended by at least one USDOT blue-ribbon commission) is still quite small compared to the increases in the unit price of fuel that have been seen in the last five years as a result of the underlying high price of oil. Meanwhile, the practice of allocating fuel tax revenues solely to highway improvement and maintenance is an institution which should be supported since it commits otherwise fickle legislators to a certain level of prudential provision. I would even argue that the necessity of preserving it is so great that the impact of a fuel tax increase on low-income groups should be entirely mitigated by cutting their income taxes an equivalent amount.
As an economist I do not see that it is sensible to reject private financing for highways in situations where the private finance would accelerate construction and the annualized social rate of return on the private investment (not including financing costs) less the annualized social rate of return on the publicly funded investment is greater than the annualized cost of the private financing. Experience, however, suggests that the corridors where this would happen are very few in number. (This analysis does not apply to other forms of privatization which do not necessarily involve loan finance, such as contracting out construction and maintenance services. There, it is more important for the state to ensure that contracting produces real efficiencies all the way down the chain, and that there are clear and well-drafted standards in place which can support quality control.)
P.S. While it is understandable that much of the previous discussion has devolved onto the merits of trickle-down economics versus a full-employment policy, that line of discussion--aside from annoying moderators--does not really help us understand how much highway investment is optimum for the economy or for people's well-being. Trickle-down economics is based on the intuition that setting the private sector free to invest benefits all income groups: it
can work, but frequently doesn't. Similarly, a full-employment policy is based on the intuition that if all people are able to work, then all income groups benefit. This
can work (and work it did, for quite a while from the early 1940's to the early 1970's in the US), but it can also lead to inflation and price instability. Where highways are concerned, the main difference between the two philosophies is that the state takes a greater role in directing public investment (including in highways) when attempting to implement a full-employment policy because public works are an important method of filling employment deficits.
A better way of relating highways to economic policy is to ask about the overall capital stock of the economy and how it is deployed. We invest (i.e., expand the capital stock) for economic growth. Both the public and private sectors invest. Investment, and the growth that results from it, can redistribute income and wealth to a mild degree. As economic actors we also operate on underlying rate-of-return expectations which are tied to long-term interest rates. Highways are an important part of the overall capital stock, and like most other forms of durable investment, the annualized rate of return is fairly low but continues over a very long period of time. This is incompatible with the way much private-sector investment is financed (short-term loans with relatively high interest rates), but highways and durable assets in general play important direct and indirect roles in supporting the rates of return that are available from private investment and thus in promoting the growth of the economy as a whole. So how do you determine how far to turn the dial in favor of investment in highways? Full general equilibrium analysis covering the range of commodities available in a modern economy is not computationally feasible even now, so we need to pick a simple metric and stick with it after appropriate validation. I'd suggest two elements of it include "no bridges falling down" and "buildout of all new corridors that support an annualized rate of return in excess of the long-term interest rate."
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
But that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate. Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases. To use your restaurant example, no restaurant industry has more government involvement than Cuba's, yet Cuban cuisine has all but died on the island itself (it really only flourishes outside the country and in establishments where quasi-capitalism exists). What big government has done there is to squelch the competitive drive to make food that actually tastes good and attracts people.
Someone who genuinely enjoys making good food will continue to do so in the absence of a free market, so I suspect the issue is more complicated than that.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 10:48:15 AM
As a general philosophy, I believe that government should provide for the general public (roads, national defense, etc.). There is a Constitutional component to roads; in fact providing roads is one of the permitted activities of the federal government. "Post offices and post roads," anyone?
I don't mind paying taxes for services I use. I don't even mind paying taxes for the general welfare; i.e., me paying school taxes even though I have no children. That's why I would have no problem with a slight increase in the gas tax, but only if that revenue is used for roads and not diverted for Obamacare or the EPA or the FDA or elsewhere. I don't think it should be diverted to transit, either. Raise the bus fares a quarter if transit needs money.
The importance of the post road, naturally, was one of communication, the dissemination of information being seen as critical to the Union. At the time of the Constitution, two things are worth noting: 1) all information had to be physically conveyed from place to place, and 2) a road was essentially nothing more than a public way of land travel, having no specific characteristics as to how it was improved.
About a half century later, a specific type of improvement involving rails was devised, and these new rail roads became an important category of post road. Non-rail roads, on the other hand, didn't see extensive improvement in terms of pavement and other modifications until the 20th century. By then, although information was still carried over these, that function was fairly incidental to their overall use. Much information was still physically conveyed by rail road, and what's more, non-physical means of communication had also been invented.
So as far as the congressional mandate on post roads is concerned, its natural evolution today would suggest government having the same interest in telephone, television and internet transmission that it originally had over roads. Now I'm sure that diverting fuel taxes to cable TV, internet providers and cellphone carriers is not what you've got in mind, so that shifts focus to another important congressional power, that of regulating interstate commerce.
Again going back to constitutional days, most goods were carried by water, and most people, for business purposes at least, weren't transported at all. Again, the first important roads for commercial purposes were the rail kind, which efficiently moved both goods and people. Now the concrete-and-asphalt kind of roads carries the majority of both, but railroads still move a lot of goods, and transit moves a lot of people. The way transit gets off the hook from federal involvement is that it isn't inter-state, so Congress has no power over it.
At any rate, the point is whether we should decide where our taxes may be spent because of their specific application, or because of their purpose in carrying out a governmental power. In other words, can a highway fuel tax not be used on a railroad because it isn't a highway? Or can it be, because the tax is intended to carry out the promotion of commerce? (And where does transit fit in, because while the people it carries don't always cross state lines, the business they conduct when they get there very well might?) Or is it actually intended for communication purposes, in which case it should be spent a little bit on highways, almost not at all on railroads, and mostly on cell towers and fiber optic data lines? (And by the way, is a railroad a highway?)
To boil it down as far as I can, should we tax the problem or the solution?
Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.
Yeah, let's make parks ugly. Might as well erect billboards in national parks.
Only on the Interstates through the parks.
Quote from: bugo on November 14, 2012, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.
Yeah, let's make parks ugly. Might as well erect billboards in national parks.
Not necessarily. You'd be surprised where they can hide cell towers. There's one taking up two parking spaces in the garage across the street from me, and a nearby church steeple has one hidden inside. And I know of another one that sticks out of a disused smokestack at an old mill that was turned into upscale apartments. I'd actually hazard a guess that, at least in developed areas, the vast majority of cell towers are inside other structures rather than a structure of their own.
Even one of the cell towers disguised as a tree wouldn't look too out of place in a large forest at a park. They are much less of an eyesore than billboards.
And I agree with hb, cell phones are a necessary modern amenity, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed on highway ROW as long as they not only remain open to any service provider, but also remain owned by the state.
It could be a modern art installation. Put a fake tree in Sequoia National Park and see how many tourists hug it.
Well I doubt there are many places where a public park would be the best location for a cell phone tower, but highway r/w is certainly a reasonable place for them. That's especially true for rural/suburban interchanges where the land between the ramps and the mainline freeway is essentially wasted. I've also seen them many times atop a tower on a high voltage power line. I like that kind of efficient use of space.
In the broader discussion of roads and the economy, infrastructure is one of those things that government has every business borrowing money to build. The economic activity generated by smooth roads and functional pipes and reliable electricity more than makes up for the expenditure. (Obviously assuming one is building stuff that's actually needed.) And with the amount of terrible infrastructure in this country, it is inexcusable that America is not taking advantage of low interest rates and almost non-existent inflation to throw trillions of dollars at this problem.
Instead everyone is arguing over how much to chop out of the government and whose taxes to cut when none of that is going to do squat for this sluggish economy. And I tell you, "our children" ain't going to give two shits about our "horrible debt" if their cities are falling apart around them.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.
Though in underground rail transit systems, those phone companies have to pay the transit authority for getting approval to install underground cells.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 14, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
Well I doubt there are many places where a public park would be the best location for a cell phone tower, but highway r/w is certainly a reasonable place for them. That's especially true for rural/suburban interchanges where the land between the ramps and the mainline freeway is essentially wasted. I've also seen them many times atop a tower on a high voltage power line. I like that kind of efficient use of space.
I am confident that the owners of those power transmission towers do not give that space away for free.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 14, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
In the broader discussion of roads and the economy, infrastructure is one of those things that government has every business borrowing money to build. The economic activity generated by smooth roads and functional pipes and reliable electricity more than makes up for the expenditure. (Obviously assuming one is building stuff that's actually needed.) And with the amount of terrible infrastructure in this country, it is inexcusable that America is not taking advantage of low interest rates and almost non-existent inflation to throw trillions of dollars at this problem.
I strongly agree.
And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 14, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
Instead everyone is arguing over how much to chop out of the government and whose taxes to cut when none of that is going to do squat for this sluggish economy. And I tell you, "our children" ain't going to give two shits about our "horrible debt" if their cities are falling apart around them.
I've no problem with spending money on public works to stimulate the economy. President F. D. Roosevelt used that sort of spending to get the Blue Ridge Parkway started (though it was not completed until the 1980's), and Skyline Drive, immediately to the north of the Blue Ridge Parkway completed by 1940.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
I strongly agree.
And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.
I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 14, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.
Any category is more favorable than a Krugman Keynesian.
Quote from: bugo on November 14, 2012, 04:23:09 PM
Yeah, let's make parks ugly. Might as well erect billboards in national parks.
A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.
Plus having cell service in parks, especially vast rural ones like Yellowstone, would make it easier for people to call for help in emergency situations. The same logic applies to highway ROW. Letting cell companies put towers along the ROW lets them collect revenue and eliminates the need for call boxes, which is an expense the government or tollway agency could then dispense with. And it would solve the problem of the lack of cell service in the Adirondacks along the Northway.
Hardly the same as erecting billboards, especially since as other posters have noted that cell towers can be disguised. I've even seem them posing as trees.
There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.
Quote from: Steve on November 14, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.
Well, exactly. One day in the future, we'll look back at cell towers the way we shake our heads at old photos of vast nets of telegraph wires and belching black smokestacks...we'll have found less obtrusive ways to achieve the same technology. And of course, we'll have new technologies propagating new kinds of eyesores...
Quote from: Steve on November 14, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.
Satellites sure are a thing, aren't they?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 09:21:47 PM
A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.
I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 14, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
I strongly agree.
And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.
I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.
I have the deepest of respect for Paul Krugman. Though I find it amusing that his all-time best column was one that Libertarians and other advocates in favor of free markets (especially when it comes to land use and zoning) were nearly unanimous (!) in commending. He also turned out to be right.
It is still online on the
NYT Web site: That Hissing Sound (08-Aug-2005) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 09:21:47 PM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 14, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.
Any category is more favorable than a Krugman Keynesian.
H.B., I know a lot of people who tend to be Republican don't like Krugman for the nasty stuff he's written (and writes) about the national GOP.
But in spite of that, he's also very much in favor of free markets (something that comes as a surprise to some).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 09:21:47 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 14, 2012, 04:23:09 PM
Yeah, let's make parks ugly. Might as well erect billboards in national parks.
A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.
Plus having cell service in parks, especially vast rural ones like Yellowstone, would make it easier for people to call for help in emergency situations. The same logic applies to highway ROW. Letting cell companies put towers along the ROW lets them collect revenue and eliminates the need for call boxes, which is an expense the government or tollway agency could then dispense with. And it would solve the problem of the lack of cell service in the Adirondacks along the Northway.
Hardly the same as erecting billboards, especially since as other posters have noted that cell towers can be disguised. I've even seem them posing as trees.
I have no problem putting cell phone service in areas designated as parkland, even lands that are supposed to be "wild."
Your point about limited cell phone service along some highway corridors is correct. Cell phone penetration is now so broad that people expect that their phones will work everywhere, and there are clear public safety benefits (and transportation system benefits) to having nearly universal cell phone coverage.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2012, 01:11:42 AM
I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)
The meeting was at one of Kentucky's resort parks, with a lodge and a conference center. Several of Kentucky's state parks are labeled "resort parks" because they have such facilities. This one was at Dale Hollow State Resort Park.
Quote from: Steve on November 14, 2012, 09:47:23 PM
There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.
At the "Spice Rack" (a/k/a the Transportation Cabinet building in Frankfort), the conference center on the first floor is located in the interior of the building with no cell service available. Since the majority of state-issued BlackBerries use AT&T, they installed a repeater or signal booster that's compatible with AT&T to allow conference attendees to have service. (Doesn't help me, because my BB is Appalachian Wireless due to the fact that AT&T's coverage in this area is terrible). I don't know how feasible such technology would be for applications such as highway corridors.
I have no cell service inside my house, as it's at the periphery cell tower signal range for both AT&T (my personal phone) and App Wireless (my work phone), but I bought a booster device. Mounted a small antenna (maybe a foot long) on the roof and ran a cable down to a plugged-in transmitter, and it boosts the signal for both AT&T (GSM) and App Wireless (CDMA) in that room. Doesn't work for the whole house, though.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
But in spite of that, (Krugman's) also very much in favor of free markets (something that comes as a surprise to some).
I've never, ever, ever gotten that impression from him, and his column is usually printed every week in the Lexington paper, and contrary to the opinions of some that I don't expose myself to offerings from the other side, I do read his work.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2012, 09:28:43 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2012, 01:11:42 AM
I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)
The meeting was at one of Kentucky's resort parks, with a lodge and a conference center. Several of Kentucky's state parks are labeled "resort parks" because they have such facilities. This one was at Dale Hollow State Resort Park.
Put even that aside. I don't think it would be unusual for an outdoorsy-type company to have a meeting in a park.
Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan. First, there's not the density of population there to justify them. A handful of calls every day isn't going to pay for it. Second, the cell phone towers need landlines or microwave links between them and power to run them. The backcountry is not electrified, and I wouldn't want it to be. Third, encouraging people to depend on calling 911 rather than making sure their party is self-reliant is a mistake. Even if you get through, in the best case it's at least several hours before a rescue helicopter can get there. Worst case, the same snowstorm that's got the hikers or climbers in trouble also grounds the helicopters and it takes a week to get a rescue party there. Fourth, cell phone batteries don't last long enough for most emergencies. The batteries go dead just when you need them the most. Fifth, reception is spotty in any rural area. If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone. Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites. Sixth, people yammering inanities on their cell phones is one thing I go to wilderness areas to get away from. If you can't stand to be without your cell phone for a day, go hang out at a mall. Or consider therapy.
They need to build a cell tower or two along US 59/270 in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. There's a stretch of about 30 miles with no service at all. They also need to put one on top of Buck Knob in Scott County, Arkansas. My dad lives in Posey Hollow and I can't get cell service out there.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan. First, there's not the density of population there to justify them. A handful of calls every day isn't going to pay for it. Second, the cell phone towers need landlines or microwave links between them and power to run them. The backcountry is not electrified, and I wouldn't want it to be. Third, encouraging people to depend on calling 911 rather than making sure their party is self-reliant is a mistake. Even if you get through, in the best case it's at least several hours before a rescue helicopter can get there. Worst case, the same snowstorm that's got the hikers or climbers in trouble also grounds the helicopters and it takes a week to get a rescue party there. Fourth, cell phone batteries don't last long enough for most emergencies. The batteries go dead just when you need them the most. Fifth, reception is spotty in any rural area. If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone. Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites. Sixth, people yammering inanities on their cell phones is one thing I go to wilderness areas to get away from. If you can't stand to be without your cell phone for a day, go hang out at a mall. Or consider therapy.
We're not talking about the wilderness here, we're talking about along roads and at main establishments, i.e. cell service along the roads through the park and maybe at the visitor's center and other main facilities. Not covering every square inch of wilderness with 4G.
Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 15, 2012, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan.
We're not talking about the wilderness here, we're talking about along roads and at main establishments, i.e. cell service along the roads through the park and maybe at the visitor's center and other main facilities. Not covering every square inch of wilderness with 4G.
You're not, but cpzilliacus is. Actually, even along the roads, there's often no electricity or telephone wiring. And simple 2-lane blacktop is a lot less intrusive to the countryside than a series of cellphone towers.
Quote
Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.
There's pretty good reception at the tops of prominent mountains because it's line of sight to some tower somewhere. Try going down 2,000 feet from the peak, especially in a ravine.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 15, 2012, 05:11:53 PM
Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.
Mountains are more likely to have cell signals than valleys.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan. First, there's not the density of population there to justify them.
(1) How many lives might be saved by such cell phone towers?
(2) There are many (rural) areas where installing telephone and electric distribution lines where density did not justify running them. In spite of that, the lines were run to many of those places.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
A handful of calls every day isn't going to pay for it. Second, the cell phone towers need landlines or microwave links between them and power to run them.
Might that be a good application for solar powered sites with storage battery array?
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
The backcountry is not electrified, and I wouldn't want it to be.
Agreed.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Third, encouraging people to depend on calling 911 rather than making sure their party is self-reliant is a mistake. Even if you get through, in the best case it's at least several hours before a rescue helicopter can get there. Worst case, the same snowstorm that's got the hikers or climbers in trouble also grounds the helicopters and it takes a week to get a rescue party there. Fourth, cell phone batteries don't last long enough for most emergencies. The batteries go dead just when you need them the most. Fifth, reception is spotty in any rural area. If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone. Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites.
Do you by chance watch "Alaska State Troopers" on the National Geographic Channel?
Not so long ago, there was an episode where a person badly injured in a snow machine crash. The troopers were able to reach the victim by their own snow machines, but were not able to use their own police radios, nor their cell phones because of being in a dead area.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
Sixth, people yammering inanities on their cell phones is one thing I go to wilderness areas to get away from. If you can't stand to be without your cell phone for a day, go hang out at a mall. Or consider therapy.
No dispute.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2012, 04:06:58 PM
If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone. Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites.
Seriously. If you're going to be in the wilderness, that far away from other people, then there is technology out there for you which doesn't rely on cell signal. If you're just Joe Schmoe who can't surf the web from a business meeting at a state park where there are dozens of other people around, then I tend to not be very sympathetic to your plight. I, for one, would never venture out on a trek assuming that I would get cell signal the entire way; that's simply foolishness.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2012, 09:21:47 PM
Quote from: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 14, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.
Any category is more favorable than a Krugman Keynesian.
Paul Krugmann is a quack. If we followed his recommendations for national borrowing, our national debt would double if not triple, and we would look like Greece.
Says the guy who regularly posts pseudoscience like 'abiotic oil'.
Read what Krugmann writes, if you want to know what he believes about national borrowing.
Okay, at this point, I am calling this thread unsalvageable. Cell phones, Krugman, borrowing, abiotic oil, and Greece are not road-related.
END