Kentucky congressman floats idea to make highway trust fund solvent again

[Pete from Boston]

...all you have to do is be in a major metropolitan area when there is a public transportation strike, and you will see massive traffic backups throughout entire regions.

Substitute "snow" for "public transportation strike" and the same logic (sic) justifies taxpayers in San Diego paying to remove Boston's snow.    As a national priority, not really.  Some people choose to live where they are dependent on communal transit.  Others where they are 200 miles from a legitimate hospital, others 20 miles from a store.  All lifestyle choices and none, really, worthy of federal concern.

It's not my problem that the West is arid, that New Orleans gets hit by hurricanes, that Appalachia lacked electricity, or that children in Chicago  lack adequate nutrition.  And yet we pool our money to target all of these "not worthy of Federal concern" "lifestyle choice" issues. 

You might prefer fifty individual countries, but that ain't the place you live.

(We'll probably get federal aid for the snow this year, and I just want to say thank you for your part.)

[hbelkins]

Not sure if this is related or not, but it's been mentioned elsewhere about the hit Kentucky's Road Fund is taking because of the drop in the state gas tax. Our gas tax is tied to the wholesale price of gas and is set quarterly. The tax went down about a nickel on Jan. 1 based on the wholesale price on Oct. 1, and is slated to go down again April 1 because the wholesale price was lower on Jan. 1 than it was on Oct. 1. The state legislature is considering a bill to set a statutory floor at the Jan. 1 rate because the Road Fund is slated to take another huge hit the first of next month. About half of those revenues go to local governments to maintain city streets and county roads.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm generally in support of the philosophy of Americans for Prosperity. But AFP is running ads against enacting a statutory floor on the gas tax, calling it a tax hike. I have to disagree with them on this issue. I didn't see the extra nickel in my pocket when the tax went down in January. In fact, prices started going back up at the pump. I guess AFP forgot about Article 1, Section 8, which designates roads as a proper governmental expenditure dating back to the founding of our republic.

[kkt]

Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.  Which is why the interstate commerce and defense clauses have been relied on for constitutional authority to spend federal money on roads.

[NE2]

Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.

Which roads don't carry the post?

[The Nature Boy]

My folks live down a rural dead end road and have a PO Box.

So that one.

[hbelkins]

Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.

Which roads don't carry the post?

There are a few, like Nature Boy's example, but probably not very many. And I'd say that UPS or FedEx would probably deliver to that address, so that probably qualifies as "post." I have a PO box as well and I live on a road that has rural delivery.

[sbeaver44]

If Amtrak had better service, they'd pull in more passengers. 

That is a general "railfan" argument.  Doubtful.  The argument breaks down into advocates of more frequent trips, which, since Amtrak loses money on every run, is dubious.  And advocates of "high speed rail" which is somehow going to compete with the existing high speed air, despite air's faster speeds and flexibility (you can add a new flight to anywhere in a day, based on the Market's demands, high speed rail is tied to its special rails). 

When considering cost per run, fixed and variable costs must be considered.  When adding an additional run, fixed costs in total do not change, but fixed costs per run decrease.  If Amtrak is not covering even its variable costs, which is at least somewhat likely, then, yes, adding another run would only make the loss worse.  However, if Amtrak is recovering variable costs and a portion of fixed costs per run, then each additional run added would result in less of a loss overall.  I know that Amtrak, like you said, makes a profit in the northeast.  I think this all boils down to the fundamental problem with Amtrak:  Amtrak only owns the rails in the Northeast and Keystone corridors last time I checked.

This causes several problems:

• Amtrak has to pay the "host railroad" that owns the tracks for "trackage rights", basically a lease fee
• Amtrak trains are subject to scheduling and priority of the host railroad.
• There are some places where there simply is not the additional capacity to add more runs.  The Cardinal route is a great example of this.  Currently this train runs only 3x per week, I believe because the section owned by the Buckingham Branch in Virginia-West Virginia cannot take on any additional capacity.  Due to this, Cincinnati (only served by this route) only sees service at 1:20 AM one direction and 3:20 AM the other direction, and again, only 3 times per week.
• Another example:  Amtrak owns the Harrisburg-Philadelphia corridor and 14 trains go from Harrisburg to Philadelphia (and on to New York) per day.  The 104 miles to Philadelphia takes 1:45.  Only 1 train in each direction travels the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route each day, owned by Norfolk Southern, and takes 5:25 to cover the 249 miles.

I think Amtrak has the potential to be competitive for travel under a certain distance, say, 450 miles, but of course anything long-distance, not as much.  I appreciate Amtrak's existence as an option.  I do enjoy taking Amtrak when the option is available, although it is not usually the most cost-effective option.

[Duke87]

Article 1 section 8 says "post roads", not every road.

Which roads don't carry the post?

There are a few, like Nature Boy's example, but probably not very many. And I'd say that UPS or FedEx would probably deliver to that address, so that probably qualifies as "post." I have a PO box as well and I live on a road that has rural delivery.

The question is what exactly is meant by "post road". Given that in the Northeast we have "Boston Post Road", "Albany Post Road", and whatnot, there is a certain perception that a "post road" is an intercity road constructed for the explicit purpose of transporting mail long distance. This could be interpreted to mean that only intercity roads (and not local roads) are appropriate use of federal money.

Of course, the authors of the constitution did not envision automobiles or even railroads. Nor did they envision huge sprawling metro areas. In a world where most of Manhattan was still farmland and even the largest cities only covered a couple square miles, it was only roads between cities that were of national importance. Today that's not the case, and a lot of transportation within cities is of national importance.

So in spirit it is a valid application of that provision even if it does not necessarily meet what it literally says. When you try to run a government based on a document written 228 years ago, you're going to have to reinterpret a few passages so they make sense in the modern world.

[UCFKnights]

\Eliminate it and the free market will fill in its needs with new bus and plane routes.  Leaving, more or less, the northeast corridor.  Can we fairly say that roads and air cannot completely cover the personal transit needs there (remember that freight is not part of the question, as it is handled profitably by investor owned trains) ?  Maybe?  If the answer is yes and passenger trains are needed then is that a national or a local/regional problem?  The easy answer is national.  But that is wrong.  It is a local/regional problem, of, and this is important, the wealthiest part of the country.  It make no economic sense to transfer money from motorists elsewhere in the country to fund a solution to a local/regional problem in the wealthiest part of the country.  More than enough local resources (taxes, fares) to cover it. 

I just thought I would add that florida currently has 2 completely privately funded passenger rail projects, one under construction, and one about to start construction. First time in a long time there has been new private rail transit in this country, and outside the northeast.

[NE2]

And both primarily intended for tourists (assuming the one supposedly 'about to start construction' is the maglev from OIA to the convention center). Tourists are not exactly your average user, especially business travelers going to conventions.

[oscar]

The question is what exactly is meant by "post road". Given that in the Northeast we have "Boston Post Road", "Albany Post Road", and whatnot, there is a certain perception that a "post road" is an intercity road constructed for the explicit purpose of transporting mail long distance. This could be interpreted to mean that only intercity roads (and not local roads) are appropriate use of federal money.

Of course, the authors of the constitution did not envision automobiles or even railroads. Nor did they envision huge sprawling metro areas. In a world where most of Manhattan was still farmland and even the largest cities only covered a couple square miles, it was only roads between cities that were of national importance. Today that's not the case, and a lot of transportation within cities is of national importance.

So in spirit it is a valid application of that provision even if it does not necessarily meet what it literally says. When you try to run a government based on a document written 228 years ago, you're going to have to reinterpret a few passages so they make sense in the modern world.

Since the primary purpose of that Congressional power was to allow creation of a national postal service, ISTM that the ancillary "post road" power could cover, without discomfort, any road that could be used for mail delivery. (Not that the Feds would need be involved in roadbuilding, if it could just piggyback on the roads created by state and local governments for non-mail delivery purposes.) Also, the custom of naming only some major roads as "post roads" seem to be a Northeastern thing, that doesn't drive interpretation of a provision covering states as far south as Georgia which don't have designated "post roads", let alone new states authorized under the Constitution.

In any case, the power to establish "post roads" doesn't prohibit Federal involvement with other kinds of roads (if any), so long as some other power could apply. As noted above, "national defense" was a key part of the justification (especially for PR purposes during the Cold War) for the Interstate highway system. 

[bandit957]

I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.

[NE2]

I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.

Not quite true: http://www.svtransport.org/Intercity/Intercity.html

[hbelkins]

I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.

Thought I read somewhere that a small airline was going to start passenger service between Pikeville and Nashville.

[bandit957]

I notice Pikeville is no longer served by any sort of mass transit. No Amtrak, no Greyhound, no Megabus, no airlines. It's bad for Kentucky to cut off transit funds.

Thought I read somewhere that a small airline was going to start passenger service between Pikeville and Nashville.

I vaguely remember seeing something about this maybe a year ago. I forgot all about it until now.

[bandit957]

Pikeville does have a small airport - or it did. I don't know what the point is in having an airport if there's no airliners serving it.

[Scott5114]

Pikeville does have a small airport - or it did. I don't know what the point is in having an airport if there's no airliners serving it.

The vast majority of US airports are for general aviation (think 4-seater planes). Goldsby, OK, population 1200, has at least four airports, only one of which has so much as a paved runway, beacon, and airport code (1K4: it's not even important enough to get three letters).

[SP Cook]

Pikeville has an airport and has a semi-charter to Nashville.

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Direct-Flight-from-Pikeville-to-Nashville-Seeing-a-Slow-Takeoff--297177751.html

Probably gone soon.  With modern highways, its not that far to drive to Charleston, the Tri-Cities, or Lexington.   Cincinnati or Louisville are not unreasonable. 

As to the bus comment, NE2 is right.  The same is true throughout Appalachia and, I suspect, other rural places.  There are small, generally somewhat governmentally subsidized, bus outfits that ply the backroads and take people to "town".  They don't interline with the Greyhound dominated national system and thus don't show up in a general search for bus connections and make it look like the town is unreachable except by car.  In WV, I can name ten such operations at least that run to and from some really small places.

[cpzilliacus]

As to the bus comment, NE2 is right.  The same is true throughout Appalachia and, I suspect, other rural places.  There are small, generally somewhat governmentally subsidized, bus outfits that ply the backroads and take people to "town".  They don't interline with the Greyhound dominated national system and thus don't show up in a general search for bus connections and make it look like the town is unreachable except by car.  In WV, I can name ten such operations at least that run to and from some really small places.

I think having (relatively) short-haul bus service to connect to national transportation networks (including air, bus and in some cases railroad) is not such a bad idea (even if it consumes some operating subsidy) - and the costs are relatively low (unlike Amtrak).

Some private bus companies provide such service to rural college towns.

[The Nature Boy]

The government subsidizes small regional airports don't they? I remember reading that the Lebanon (NH) Municipal Airport gets government funding and you can only catch flights to Boston and White Plains, NY from there. I remember reading this was common and that a lot of smaller airports like that receive it.

And in rural college towns where no private company provides bus service, the University will often step in and offer a shuttle to the nearest train/bus station or airport.

[bandit957]

I think having (relatively) short-haul bus service to connect to national transportation networks (including air, bus and in some cases railroad) is not such a bad idea (even if it consumes some operating subsidy) - and the costs are relatively low (unlike Amtrak).

Some private bus companies provide such service to rural college towns.

Something between a local city bus system and a big intercity network like Megabus or Greyhound might work.

Or expand each city's bus system to go all the way to the edge of the metropolitan area or trade area, where you can catch the next city's buses.