Nation’s highways remain an issue for an Obama second term

[NE2]

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 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.

[vdeane]

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!

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.

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!

[empirestate]

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.

[StogieGuy7]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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]

[StogieGuy7]

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....   

[StogieGuy7]

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.   

[empirestate]

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....   

"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.

[kphoger]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[NE2]

Trickle-down is supposed to improve things for the rich and convince the poor they don't need anything.

[Scott5114]

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.

[StogieGuy7]

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. 

STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS

THANK YOU!  I agree.

[NE2]

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).

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

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. 

[bugo]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[NE2]

Robert Moses... oh wait.

[Scott5114]

Transportation policy is a political subject that is allowed. Trickle-down economics is a political subject that is not allowed.

See the difference?

[kphoger]

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.

[hbelkins]

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  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.

Who let Carl Rogers in?