We should devolve transportation funding to the states

[kphoger]

Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.

That's not what I said.  It is a political opinion that it's the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  It is another political opinion that it's the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.

Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.

[hotdogPi]

Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it.  However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.

Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.

(post was written before kphoger's reply)

If current trends continue, we won't be extinct, but there will be some major changes. Regarding temperature, North Carolina's current climate is what South Carolina's climate was in 1900. So move everything north one state – this includes cockroaches and kudzu, both of which we don't want. Some animal and plant species that live in cold climates can't move one state over, and they will die.

Sea level rise is more of a long-term thing (1,000 years) than short-term (100 years). You can build a short wall to keep the water out, but can you imagine a 30-foot wall (no, not that wall) everywhere there's coastline?

Hurricanes are already getting more intense.

[NWI_Irish96]

Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.

That's not what I said.  It is a political opinion that it's the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  It is another political opinion that it's the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.

Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.

The people aren't capable of ensuring the planet is usable in 100 years, unless you include in that definition the power to force other people who don't care to comply outside of the auspices of the government.

[kphoger]

Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.

That's not what I said.  It is a political opinion that it's the government's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  It is another political opinion that it's the people's job to ensure the planet is usable in 100 years.  People of both opinions still want a usable planet in 100 years.

Now, whether you even care if the planet is usable in 100 years or not–that's more of an ethical question than a political one.

The people aren't capable of ensuring the planet is usable in 100 years, unless you include in that definition the power to force other people who don't care to comply outside of the auspices of the government.

That may or may not be the case.  (Money talks, but how far does it walk?)  But that's a political discussion for a different forum.  I was just pointing out that what the government's job is is certainly a political question/opinion–regardless of what you hope for the future of your society.

[vdeane]

Funding responsibility shifting to the states is pretty much what happened.  Nixon block granted the highway funding, and we've never re-established the federal planning we used to have.  If we did, we wouldn't have such messes as I-14, the I-69 cluster in Texas, or the Carolina Southway (I-87), and new interstate construction wouldn't take so long.  All this is the result of new highways being state-run efforts with no dedicated federal funding.  Interstate maintenance funds don't even exist anymore - they're just lumped into the NHPP pool of funds that can be used on the entire NHS.  And spending decisions are made by the states and MPOs; all FHWA can do is set rules for what each fund source can be used for.  That's part of the reason why highway construction has slowed down in most states.  Spending money on one thing means not spending money on another.  And, as mentioned, earmarks are no more.  If you want more highway construction, we'd need to re-establish interstate construction and maintenance funds.

And no, federal funding is not the only reason we spend money on transit.  Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit, or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit?  That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around.  It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.

Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it.  However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.

It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society.  If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed.  If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for?  If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.

[kernals12]

Funding responsibility shifting to the states is pretty much what happened.  Nixon block granted the highway funding, and we've never re-established the federal planning we used to have.  If we did, we wouldn't have such messes as I-14, the I-69 cluster in Texas, or the Carolina Southway (I-87), and new interstate construction wouldn't take so long.  All this is the result of new highways being state-run efforts with no dedicated federal funding.  Interstate maintenance funds don't even exist anymore - they're just lumped into the NHPP pool of funds that can be used on the entire NHS.  And spending decisions are made by the states and MPOs; all FHWA can do is set rules for what each fund source can be used for.  That's part of the reason why highway construction has slowed down in most states.  Spending money on one thing means not spending money on another.  And, as mentioned, earmarks are no more.  If you want more highway construction, we'd need to re-establish interstate construction and maintenance funds.

And no, federal funding is not the only reason we spend money on transit.  Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit, or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit?  That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around.  It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.

Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it.  However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.

It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society.  If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed.  If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for?  If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.

Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains

[kphoger]

Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains

I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service.  If buses, then buses.  If trains, then trains.  If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.

(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point.  And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)

Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,

In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing.  Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably.  Kansas City, no way.

or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit?  That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around.  It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.

Very well put.  If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't.  However, what if there isn't?  If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it?  Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.

It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society.  If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed.  If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for?  If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.

Again, politics.  Not getting into it.  Been there, done that.

[kernals12]

Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains

I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service.  If buses, then buses.  If trains, then trains.  If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.

(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point.  And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)

Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,

In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing.  Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably.  Kansas City, no way.

or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit?  That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around.  It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.

Very well put.  If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't.  However, what if there isn't?  If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it?  Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.

It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society.  If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed.  If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for?  If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.

Again, politics.  Not getting into it.  Been there, done that.

Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service

[kalvado]

Outside of a half dozen dense cities, transit is almost completely irrelevant. So no i don't think they would notice if rail service stopped. I'm okay with subsidizing bus service for those who can't drive for whatever reason but I don't think we need fancy new trains

I'm OK with subsidizing whatever mode of transportation best serves the needs of those requiring the service.  If buses, then buses.  If trains, then trains.  If a combination of the two, then a combination of the two.

(All trains were "fancy new trains" at some point.  And all buses were "fancy new buses" at some point, too.)

Have you considered how there would be a lot more congestion if we didn't have transit,

In most cities, I doubt congestion would increase noticeably if transit stopped existing.  Major transit cities like Chicago and New York, probably.  Kansas City, no way.

or that some people actually like living in cities and getting around by walking and using transit?  That may not be the preferences of either you or me, but there are people who feel that way, and they should be able to get around.  It shouldn't be about roads or walking/biking/transit, it should be about finding ways for both to co-exist.

Very well put.  If there is a substantial number of people who will use a walking/biking/transit network, then they are just as deserving of funds as those who don't.  However, what if there isn't?  If a city has a great transit system but hardly anyone uses it, at what point should the government stop funneling money into it?  Below a certain level of service, it stops serving the needs of the disadvantaged, but there's a lot of grey area between that floor and 'great'.

It is the job of the government to provide for the functioning of society.  If the planet isn't usable in 100 years, then it has failed.  If we don't have government for this, then what could we possibly have it for?  If people could do things like this, we wouldn't need government.

Again, politics.  Not getting into it.  Been there, done that.

Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service

Buses are a bit more expensive than cars on passenger-mile basis at a bit over 90 cents a passenger-mile vs 57 or so for cars. That is US statistics.
Paying full price for transit would mean fare increase of anywhere between 2x (NYC MTA) to 10x - assuming ridership stays the same. Motorists do not pay in  full for roads as well, actually. 

[Avalanchez71]

Axe the tax.

[jeffandnicole]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.

Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because they cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)

Ignore depreciation.  You're not an accountant for a business, writing off the car over its expected life span.  You aren't depreciating your cell phone, your bedroom furniture, or even the cheeseburger you ate at lunch.  Depreciation is 'paper money', not real money.  If you have a loan, you can say it's costing you a specific amount each month, and that's real money.

This is similar to those that say don't waste your money on a new car, because it loses $2,000 of value the moment you drive it off a lot. I assume a used car salesperson came up with that line.  Guess what...if you buy a used car, drive it off the lot and decide you don't want it, you're not going to get the full value of that back either.  OK, sure some places may have a 'return' police, but as a general rule, once you sign the papers, it's yours.

[kphoger]

Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service

Cheap is not the opposite of fancy.  Did you mean expensive?

A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers.  Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?

Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually. 

Thank you for not ignoring that fact.

[I-39]

How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?

[kernals12]

How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?

Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways

[1995hoo]

How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?

Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways

North Carolina already does that.

[kernals12]

How about the federal gas tax only pays for Interstates and US Highways and the states take care of everything else?

Then states would rush to slap interstate signs on all their freeways

North Carolina already does that.

I know.

[kernals12]

Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service

Cheap is not the opposite of fancy.  Did you mean expensive?

A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers.  Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?

Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually. 

Thank you for not ignoring that fact.

With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.

[hbelkins]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

Gas finally got down to a reasonable price in some locations last year. Not mine, though; it never went below $2.099 here and has gone up 40 cents since the first of the year, and that doesn't even account for refinery shutdowns in Texas or the changeover to summer blend. And now we want to jack up the taxes on gas as prices are going up, the country is still in an economic crisis caused by the government's response to the virus and unemployment is still rising? Count me out.

Highways are a legitimate federal government expenditure (post offices and post roads, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a road on which mail is not carried). What has always bugged me is that federal money is often doled out with strings attached -- pass a seat belt law, lower the BAC content to 0.08, raise the drinking age to 21, etc.

I'd rather see the feds go back to allocating certain funds to specific programs (the NHS, the ADHS, etc.) and multi-state projects like river crossings, and block-grant the rest to the states.

[kalvado]

Buses are not fancy, they're very cheap. And just as motorists pay for the roads they drive on, train passengers should pay the full cost of their service

Cheap is not the opposite of fancy.  Did you mean expensive?

A typical transit bus costs around $300,000, with room for 42 passengers.  Does anyone have a figure for how much a typical transit trainset costs?

Motorists do not pay in full for roads as well, actually. 

Thank you for not ignoring that fact.

With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.

It's a very delicate question. There is a general saying that road wear goes as 4th power of axle loading. There are a lot of discrepancies in all the data, things are more complex -  but it may be close to reasonable as a ballpark
That means that a fully loaded 18-wheeler will have as much effect on a pavement as 20 thousand cars (give or take), and that is why weight limits exist and are enforced.
20 thousand may be an overestimate, but a right lane beaten up trucks and left lane in a decent condition is not an uncommon sight
Transit buses are similar to truck axle loadings, if not exceeding those. So in terms of beating up the street, bus can easily be tens and hundreds  times worse than cars on per-passenger basis.
Oh, and transit fuel can be tax exempt. 

[kphoger]

With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.

Yes, the cost of tracks needs to be considered–unless there is already a railroad there with enough capacity for transit.  That last part is unlikely, but adding capacity to an existing r/o/w is bound to be cheaper than acquiring all-new r/o/w.  The cost of grade-separated rail service is significantly more than an at-grade line, and the cost of subway service is significantly more than that.  Long story short:  the cost of new rail depends greatly on grade separation.

And yes, buses can use existing roads.  But they, being heavy vehicles, do a bit of damage to those roads, and the subsequent maintenance needs to be taken into account.  Furthermore, if a dedicated bus lane is called for, then highway expansion may (or may not) be an additional consideration.

(How did this thread devolve into the merits of buses vs trains, anyway?)

[kalvado]

With a train you also need to consider the cost of the tracks. Buses can use existing roads.

Yes, the cost of tracks needs to be considered–unless there is already a railroad there with enough capacity for transit.  That last part is unlikely, but adding capacity to an existing r/o/w is bound to be cheaper than acquiring all-new r/o/w.  The cost of grade-separated rail service is significantly more than an at-grade line, and the cost of subway service is significantly more than that.  Long story short:  the cost of new rail depends greatly on grade separation.

And yes, buses can use existing roads.  But they, being heavy vehicles, do a bit of damage to those roads, and the subsequent maintenance needs to be taken into account.  Furthermore, if a dedicated bus lane is called for, then highway expansion may (or may not) be an additional consideration.

(How did this thread devolve into the merits of buses vs trains, anyway?)

Rename it into kernals12's fictional world and we may take turns discussing whatever ideas are brought on the table?

[hotdogPi]

And now we want to jack up the taxes on gas as prices are going up, the country is still in an economic crisis caused by the government's response to the virus and unemployment is still rising? Count me out.

I don't think it's going to happen. This is purely my idea; no official from any state has proposed that large an increase (that I know of).

When I posted the same thing a few months ago, gas prices were stable. Now might not be the best time.

[3467]

Vdeane is right FHWA was looking for a post Interstate plan that had some sort of design standard for a national highway system Rodney Slater had a passing lane idea for lower volume rural sections . But the NHS failed and became a new name for the FAP system.
Btw there is proposed i legislation in Illinois to require public objective criteria for at least major projects. Well see if that goes anywhere.

[Scott5114]

Let me get this straight. You want transportation funding in my area to be handled by the same government that made the Craig County sign?

Remember, the other organs of the Oklahoma government are worse than ODOT. And that includes the Legislature.

[kernals12]

Vdeane is right FHWA was looking for a post Interstate plan that had some sort of design standard for a national highway system Rodney Slater had a passing lane idea for lower volume rural sections . But the NHS failed and became a new name for the FAP system.
Btw there is proposed i legislation in Illinois to require public objective criteria for at least major projects. Well see if that goes anywhere.

Insert joke about Illinois corruption