Roads and bridges still crumbling, now hurting the economy.

[Snowbird]

From the AP:

Solution to crumbling roads, bridges elusive
JOAN LOWY  -  The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is struggling to come up with a solution to the nation's crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems, which are at the point of hindering economic growth.

The problems are numerous. Americans have been driving less due to a slow economy, reducing revenue from the gas tax that pays for transportation improvements. Cars that get better gas mileage are likely to offset any uptick in driving as the economy recovers.

~snip~

This was a short article, there's not a lot more to it, but the news story will continue, I'm sure.

How to solve the problem?

[Kootenanny]

From the AP:
This was a short article, there's not a lot more to it, but the news story will continue, I'm sure.

How to solve the problem?

Increase the tax on gasoline (like pretty much every other country in the world does...why do you think gas is more expensive in Canada, never mind Europe?).

[darkstarmoto]

**rant on**
How about get rid of most of the useless bureaucracy government added to "push paper" in the Dept of Interior and start paying the guys that actually work and start updating our infrastructure. All of the getting someone a cushy job crap they did from back in the 50's to date ended in tons of people who collect a check (our money) and all they do is answer phones (maybe) and stare at walls. The reason there's not enough money is because we spend it all on useless people, and while we are at it...let's use more privatized labor so we don't have to pay 10 union guys to stand around while 1 guy does the work (because union regulations say that's how they have to do it).
**rant off**

Sorry but the subject of raising taxes should be the last way we try to get things done, instead of piling the burden on us working class people...why don't we thin out the useless people burning our money? I'm not against unions, but they have embedded so much of the same crap in their own ranks they'll probably never get rid of it themselves.

[stew71]

PO in 5....4....3....

 

[ConPilot1]

Come to PA if you want to see some really good crumbling roads and bridges.  

Bad enough to have me looking towards a DS for the next ride.

[Fourstring]

Sorry but the subject of raising taxes should be the last way we try to get things done, instead of piling the burden on us working class people...why don't we thin out the useless people burning our money? I'm not against unions, but they have embedded so much of the same crap in their own ranks they'll probably never get rid of it themselves.

Uh, that's kinda happening.

Government employment changed little in January. Over the past 12
months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local
government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal
Service.

[darkstarmoto]

^^ Is true...unfortunately they are starting at the wrong end of the spectrum and getting rid of the people we actually need in most cases.

[JReazor]

How to solve the problem?

How about encouraging the use of lighter weight vehicles that would do less damage to infrastructure over time?

[bomber]

Just to show that things are funny, no matter how stupid, we got a big slug o dough from the feds to work on roads here last year -- the unions and the contractor whined non-stop until the money arrived, several workers standing teary eyed, in front of the news cameras, talking about how long they'd been outa work, and how they really needed the jobs.

The money arrived, the weather broke, the equipment was deployed, the lanes blocked, and the construction guys went out on strike. ;-}

ya gotta love it.

[Fourstring]

^^ Is true...unfortunately they are starting at the wrong end of the spectrum and getting rid of the people we actually need in most cases.

Well, fair point.  Who gets to decide which people we need vs. dead weight?  


We should appoint some bureaucrat to compile a study...

[The Shepherd]

I work for the railway. Trucking does not pay taxes on the land the roads are on, railways do. Trucking also does not pay for the upkeep of the roads, railways do.

Start by raising the tax on diesel and start charging trucking companies user fees. This will make rail more attractive for the heavier loads which will take trailers off of the highways and extend their lifespans.

Of course, in the short term, all the extra taxes and user fees will end up being paid by the customer as the prices of everything would creep up, but you have to start somewhere.

[Snowbird]

I work for the railway. Trucking does not pay taxes on the land the roads are on, railways do. Trucking also does not pay for the upkeep of the roads, railways do.

Start by raising the tax on diesel and start charging trucking companies user fees. This will make rail more attractive for the heavier loads which will take trailers off of the highways and extend their lifespans.

Of course, in the short term, all the extra taxes and user fees will end up being paid by the customer as the prices of everything would creep up, but you have to start somewhere.

Regarding the bolded: RRs own their property as you point out; that is historic fact. RRs came first, got their right-of-ways, then built. They therefore have to pay taxes (often reduced) and their own upkeep. That is how it should be.

But RRs have some built-in cost advantages due to those facts. Because RRs came first, they have primary right-of-way. What that means is that in every location where a highway and RR crosses it is the highway agency that pays for the needed improvement, whether that is simply a crossing or a bridge or an underpass. The costs of that are not cheap.

[stew71]

I work for the railway. Trucking does not pay taxes on the land the roads are on, railways do. Trucking also does not pay for the upkeep of the roads, railways do.

Start by raising the tax on diesel and start charging trucking companies user fees. This will make rail more attractive for the heavier loads which will take trailers off of the highways and extend their lifespans.

Of course, in the short term, all the extra taxes and user fees will end up being paid by the customer as the prices of everything would creep up, but you have to start somewhere.

That knock on the door are the local Teamsters. They're asking you to come outside and speak to Mr. Hoffa.  

[Snowbird]

**rant on**
How about get rid of most of the useless bureaucracy government added to "push paper" in the Dept of Interior and start paying the guys that actually work and start updating our infrastructure. All of the getting someone a cushy job crap they did from back in the 50's to date ended in tons of people who collect a check (our money) and all they do is answer phones (maybe) and stare at walls. The reason there's not enough money is because we spend it all on useless people, and while we are at it...let's use more privatized labor so we don't have to pay 10 union guys to stand around while 1 guy does the work (because union regulations say that's how they have to do it).
**rant off**

Sorry but the subject of raising taxes should be the last way we try to get things done, instead of piling the burden on us working class people...why don't we thin out the useless people burning our money? I'm not against unions, but they have embedded so much of the same crap in their own ranks they'll probably never get rid of it themselves.

You sure about your rant?

I thought Transportation Departments built most infrastructure, not the Department of Interior.

All of the getting someone a cushy job crap they did from back in the 50's to date ended in tons of people who collect a check (our money) and all they do is answer phones (maybe) and stare at walls.

Have you actually seen legions of wall-starers?

.let's use more privatized labor so we don't have to pay 10 union guys to stand around while 1 guy does the work (because union regulations say that's how they have to do it).

So, according to you, private contractors are never unionized? That's not my experience. Is the number of people standing around a sign of union involvement? Not in my experience. When people are standing around, there's either a decision being made or a wait for materials or equipment.

But what do I know?  

[darkstarmoto]

Well now I guess I stand corrected. Yes the DOT...not DOI.

Let's just say you have your opinion and I have mine.

[Kootenanny]

I work for the railway. Trucking does not pay taxes on the land the roads are on, railways do. Trucking also does not pay for the upkeep of the roads, railways do.

Start by raising the tax on diesel and start charging trucking companies user fees. This will make rail more attractive for the heavier loads which will take trailers off of the highways and extend their lifespans.

Of course, in the short term, all the extra taxes and user fees will end up being paid by the customer as the prices of everything would creep up, but you have to start somewhere.

This is all true (here in Canada as well).  And, JReazor mentioned above that driving lighter vehicles would reduce highway damage--also true.  The thing is, the vast majority of highway wear and tear comes from heavy trucks--in effect, trucking is subsidized by tax dollars, while rail is not.  This is why it's cheaper to ship stuff by the less efficient method of highway trucks than by much more efficient rail.

[bubba zanetti]

That knock on the door are the local Teamsters. They're asking you to come outside and speak sleep to with Mr. Hoffa.  

 

[bomber]

Rail isn't subsidized?

Forgeive me for interrupting, but (in the USA, at any rate) wasn't the land the tracks are on, in many instances, deeded to the railroads cost free, or at a greatly reduced rate in the first place?

[FJR1300]

Let's just say you have your opinion and I have mine.

Now that's funny!

He asks your opinion and then argues with you about how wrong you are. The only opinion that counts is his opinion... just ask him.

[zer0netgain]

Increase the tax on gasoline (like pretty much every other country in the world does...why do you think gas is more expensive in Canada, never mind Europe?).

I'd consider that only AFTER we stop misappropriating the existing tax revenues collected for this very purpose for OTHER government pet projects.

[M.Brane]

 Speaking as someone who works at the lower level of DOT ( I actually do the work) the biggest problems we have are actually being allowed to do the work, and having the personnel/equipment to get it done. By the time the environazis, lawyers, politicians, and upper management get their BS sorted out there's not much money left to actually do anything.

 

[Kootenanny]

Rail isn't subsidized?

Forgeive me for interrupting, but (in the USA, at any rate) wasn't the land the tracks are on, in many instances, deeded to the railroads cost free, or at a greatly reduced rate in the first place?

And when was that?  1860?  It's not like the rail companies can realize any profit from their rights-of-way, other than running rail on them (or shutting down and selling it off*)...and they have to cover all maintenance, improvements, and insurance on those rights of way, too.

Meanwhile, the trucking companies do NOT own the land the highways are on--they just get to use them, pretty much free of charge (other than fuel taxes, which we ALL pay).  Now, what's better...operating a business on land you own but have to maintain and insure, or operating a business on public land you get to use for free?





*BTW, even selling the land isn't always an option.  Locally, we have lots of "rails-to-trails" projects, formed on old rail rights-of-way which the rail companies simply donated to local governments, after pulling up all the rails.  The reason was, while they owned the land, even if they weren't using it, they held responsibility and had to carry insurance--their ownership actually cost them money.

[The Shepherd]

To further what I stated before, once the trucking companies start paying their fair share of taxes to maintain the roadways that they operate on and pass on the costs to us, the consumer, prices will go up. But they will only go up for the customer of the product being shipped. Those that are more frugal, or buy locally made products and produce, could possibly see a savings as the need for the county / state / province to tax you to fix roads would shift more to the users and less to the masses, as it is now.

[Snowbird]

Now that's funny!

He asks your opinion and then argues with you about how wrong you are. The only opinion that counts is his opinion... just ask him.

You consider this a solution to the original question?

**rant on**
How about get rid of most of the useless bureaucracy government added to "push paper" in the Dept of Interior and start paying the guys that actually work and start updating our infrastructure. All of the getting someone a cushy job crap they did from back in the 50's to date ended in tons of people who collect a check (our money) and all they do is answer phones (maybe) and stare at walls. The reason there's not enough money is because we spend it all on useless people, and while we are at it...let's use more privatized labor so we don't have to pay 10 union guys to stand around while 1 guy does the work (because union regulations say that's how they have to do it).
**rant off**

Sorry but the subject of raising taxes should be the last way we try to get things done, instead of piling the burden on us working class people...why don't we thin out the useless people burning our money? I'm not against unions, but they have embedded so much of the same crap in their own ranks they'll probably never get rid of it themselves.

 

[Snowbird]

 Speaking as someone who works at the lower level of DOT ( I actually do the work) the biggest problems we have are actually being allowed to do the work, and having the personnel/equipment to get it done. By the time the environazis, lawyers, politicians, and upper management get their BS sorted out there's not much money left to actually do anything.

 

In most states, DOT workers do lighter forms of maintenance and repair. This is work that is difficult to get attractive bid prices from private contractors, occurs sporadically and needs immediate attention such as replacing a stop sign that gets knocked down.

When people post stuff like darkstarmoto did, it is obvious they know little except posting unsubstantiated damning opinion.

The DOT really has little to do outside the major roles in planning and development. Sometimes STNers are well informed and offer up good stuff. Other times... not so much.

[sleazy rider]

How about using real concrete rather than the grey mud they're currently using for pavement?  Freeways built in the 50s lasted for over 40 years before requiring extensive repairs because the specs for the building materials were set high.  We just had a local freeway redone two years ago.  They're replacing it again this year because it fell apart.  And what's with the top coating with blacktop over the shit concrete?  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.  

[sleazy rider]

When people post stuff like darkstarmoto did, it is obvious they know little except posting unsubstantiated damning opinion.

You asked for opinions.  Deal with it.  It's just as valid as yours.  

[wibornz]

Hey Michigan has got the solution.  Add 9 cent additional tax to the already 37 cent gas tax, and increase the vehicle registration by 60 dollars per vehicle.  

Great, and the roads will still be junk.

[Snowbird]

You asked for opinions.  Deal with it.  It's just as valid as yours.  

That type of opinion belongs in PO.

Do you see how this post ends in an opinion with a fundamental difference from the one in question?

How about using real concrete rather than the grey mud they're currently using for pavement?  Freeways built in the 50s lasted for over 40 years before requiring extensive repairs because the specs for the building materials were set high.  We just had a local freeway redone two years ago.  They're replacing it again this year because it fell apart.  And what's with the top coating with blacktop over the shit concrete?  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

[sammyseaman]

How about using real concrete rather than the grey mud they're currently using for pavement?  Freeways built in the 50s lasted for over 40 years before requiring extensive repairs because the specs for the building materials were set high.  We just had a local freeway redone two years ago.  They're replacing it again this year because it fell apart.  And what's with the top coating with blacktop over the shit concrete?  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.  

I have doubts that Michigan puts down a sufficient base before pouring con. I haven't done any research because I am too lazy but I'd bet my Thruxton's rear shocks we don't build/repair highways like other cold states with the freeze thaw cycles like we have.

[PatM]

How about using real concrete rather than the grey mud they're currently using for pavement?  Freeways built in the 50s lasted for over 40 years before requiring extensive repairs because the specs for the building materials were set high.  We just had a local freeway redone two years ago.  They're replacing it again this year because it fell apart.  And what's with the top coating with blacktop over the shit concrete?  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.   

Yes concrete would help. All in all any road is expected to last 30 years. Asphalt needs repairs every five years, concrete not so much.
The problem however isn't the roads were better then, it's that the trucks are heavier and in far greater number. Blame it on just in time delivery. Warehouses were replaced by trucks.

[PatM]

That knock on the door are the local Teamsters. They're asking you to come outside and speak to Mr. Hoffa.  

Your neighborhood must be real wet. Ain't he talking to the fishes?  

[KenH]

Yes concrete would help. All in all any road is expected to last 30 years. Asphalt needs repairs every five years, concrete not so much.
The problem however isn't the roads were better then, it's that the trucks are heavier and in far greater number. Blame it on just in time delivery. Warehouses were replaced by trucks.

Not really. JIT reduced the need for warehouses and reduced the need for trucks, since trucks run directly from supplier to consumer instead of from supplier to warehouse to consumer.

[PatM]

To further what I stated before, once the trucking companies start paying their fair share of taxes to maintain the roadways that they operate on and pass on the costs to us, the consumer, prices will go up. But they will only go up for the customer of the product being shipped. Those that are more frugal, or buy locally made products and produce, could possibly see a savings as the need for the county / state / province to tax you to fix roads would shift more to the users and less to the masses, as it is now.

Businesses will find cheaper ways to expedite merchandises. Or stock them in warehouses close to their markets if that gives them an advantage in term of costs.

[PatM]

Not really. JIT reduced the need for warehouses and reduced the need for trucks, since trucks run directly from supplier to consumer instead of from supplier to warehouse to consumer.

You still have to deliver the same products. Warehouses were needed because some if not all of the shipping was done in bulk, read by train or ship. Remove trains, ships and warehouses, what do you get? Trucks.

[Snowbird]

Yes concrete would help. All in all any road is expected to last 30 years. Asphalt needs repairs every five years, concrete not so much.
The problem however isn't the roads were better then, it's that the trucks are heavier and in far greater number. Blame it on just in time delivery. Warehouses were replaced by trucks.

Modern asphalts can last up to twenty years believe it or not. What makes the difference is what lies under the asphalt. Old broken concrete will not support an asphalt overlay unless it is completely shattered into small pieces (rubbilization). Engineering normally involves cost trade-offs; rubbilization projects can drive cost from say $10 million to $25 million.

You are correct that trucks have gotten much heavier and place much more stress on roads and bridges. Lobbyists for the trucking industry constantly try to get increased load limits on roads and bridges never designed to handle the loads.

[PatM]

Modern asphalts can last up to twenty years believe it or not. What makes the difference is what lies under the asphalt. Old broken concrete will not support an asphalt overlay unless it is completely shattered into small pieces (rubbilization). Engineering normally involves cost trade-offs; rubbilization projects can drive cost from say $10 million to $25 million.

You are correct that trucks have gotten much heavier and place much more stress on roads and bridges. Lobbyists for the trucking industry constantly try to get increased load limits on roads and bridges never designed to handle the loads.

Yes you are correct. A new road, built to the Canadian code (don't know about the US) using asphalt will last 30 years but will need repairs every five years. Most of it will be resurfacing. Concrete should last 30 years without major repairs. Major repairs being replacing the road bed. In the end the cost should be about the same. It's just that it's easier on budgets, in the short term, to use asphalt.

I'm not blaming the trucking industry. Business men have found an opportunity to reduce their costs and sell cheaper to the consumer. That is free enterprise. However, we the public, end up subsidizing those business men, by paying the upkeep of those roads through our taxes. If by raising the trucking industry taxes, or taxes on fuel would increase consumer costs, we still end up paying for it. The difference would be less long distance truck traffic and somewhat better roads.

And yes, bad roads are bad for the economy. Maintenance on those trucks is much higher when roads are bad, so we still end up paying for it.

[darkstarmoto]

That type of opinion belongs in PO.

Do you see how this post ends in an opinion with a fundamental difference from the one in question?

Wow Snow..if you wanted a censored opinion you should have told me what to write bud. I stand by the idea that the money we currently pay in taxes is not used to an optimal end (i.e. getting stuff done). It gets burned up paying salaries to people who spin their wheels. Back in the 20's & 30's they just got out there and did it, that's how we got the infrastructure we have now.

But to keep you happy I'll be sure to keep my uneducated opinions to myself from here on in while under your all knowing presence.

Ninja edit: You're right it's a damning opinion...I vote every year to keep it and I'll vote in the future for those who I think can fix the things I think are wrong.

[pjturbo]

I'd consider that only AFTER we stop misappropriating the existing tax revenues collected for this very purpose for OTHER government pet projects.

I'd like to get in on this, so could you name a few pet projects.

Phil

[Snowbird]

Wow Snow..if you wanted a censored opinion you should have told me what to write bud. I stand by the idea that the money we currently pay in taxes is not used to an optimal end (i.e. getting stuff done). It gets burned up paying salaries to people who spin their wheels. Back in the 20's & 30's they just got out there and did it, that's how we got the infrastructure we have now.

But to keep you happy I'll be sure to keep my uneducated opinions to myself from here on in while under your all knowing presence.

Ninja edit: You're right it's a damning opinion...I vote every year to keep it and I'll vote in the future for those who I think can fix the things I think are wrong.

 

[JSharp]

Start taxing commercial vehicles by weight and miles traveled.
Stop using fuel tax revenue to subsidize commuter rail, high speed trains to nowhere, and other transportation projects.

[M.Brane]

Start taxing commercial vehicles by weight and miles traveled.

 Ever heard of weight fees, and fuel taxes?

 The problem is not the amount of money DOT has it's how it's spent. For example if there's a rock slide on hwy 33 we can't simply dump the rocks over the side (where they would end up if the road wasn't there) oh, no. The rocks have somehow now become toxic to the environment, and need to be hauled many miles away at much greater expense. Never mind all the additional diesel fuel, and time it takes to do that. That's OK though because all the equipment has been fitted with particulate filters at $10K or so each which require nearly that much per year to maintain, and keep you from using the equipment for more than a few hours at a time before it needs to be parked/regenerated.

 I'm sure other state DOTs are dealing with similar regulations, but here in CA it is beyond ridiculous. We spend huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't really matter or make sense while the roads themselves deteriorate due to lack of maintenance. When times are tough the cuts start, and of course they start from the bottom.

[Playinthestreet]

I work for the railway. Trucking does not pay taxes on the land the roads are on, railways do. Trucking also does not pay for the upkeep of the roads, railways do.

Start by raising the tax on diesel and start charging trucking companies user fees. This will make rail more attractive for the heavier loads which will take trailers off of the highways and extend their lifespans.

Of course, in the short term, all the extra taxes and user fees will end up being paid by the customer as the prices of everything would creep up, but you have to start somewhere.

Yes, and railroads in the US are not allowed to expense track/right of way repairs, they must capitalize them.  However...

For a recent order which required  transporting 33 vehicles from Iowa to California we looked into rail vs specialized, stretch removable gooseneck trailers.  The railroads pricing was the same as trucks, they would not insure the cargo ($300k each) and would not commit to a delivery schedule.  US railroads do a poor job of single carload freight transport and offer nothing in the way of lcl service.  Unit trains of coal, containers and grain are what drives US class 1 railroads.

[JSharp]

 Ever heard of weight fees, and fuel taxes?

 The problem is not the amount of money DOT has it's how it's spent. For example if there's a rock slide on hwy 33 we can't simply dump the rocks over the side (where they would end up if the road wasn't there) oh, no. The rocks have somehow now become toxic to the environment, and need to be hauled many miles away at much greater expense. Never mind all the additional diesel fuel, and time it takes to do that. That's OK though because all the equipment has been fitted with particulate filters at $10K or so each which require nearly that much per year to maintain, and keep you from using the equipment for more than a few hours at a time before it needs to be parked/regenerated.

 I'm sure other state DOTs are dealing with similar regulations, but here in CA it is beyond ridiculous. We spend huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't really matter or make sense while the roads themselves deteriorate due to lack of maintenance. When times are tough the cuts start, and of course they start from the bottom.

I understand weight fees and fuel taxes. I don't think they're direct enough. Example: there's no way a jacked up hillbilly 4X4 getting 7MPG does as much road damage as an 80,000lb tractor trailer getting roughly the same mileage. One guy is paying too much tax and the other not nearly enough. I say let the commercial operators use untaxed fuel like ag equipment and charge them directly by weight and mile.

I don't disagree at all about the fuel taxes begin misused.

[NinjaLady]

  The problem is not the amount of money DOT has it's how it's spent.

That is the root of the problem plain and simple.

[Snowbird]

Yes, and railroads in the US are not allowed to expense track/right of way repairs, they must capitalize them.  However...

Can you explain the difference briefly? Thanks.

[KenH]

How about treating the trucks like the railroads and simply deeding the rights-of-way to the trucking companies?

U. S. Code TITLE 43 > CHAPTER 22 >§ 934. Right of way through public lands granted to railroads
 
The right of way through the public lands of the United States is granted to any railroad company duly organized under the laws of any State or Territory, except the District of Columbia, or by the Congress of the United States, which shall have filed with the Secretary of the Interior a copy of its articles of incorporation, and due proofs of its organization under the same, to the extent of one hundred feet on each side of the central line of said road; also the right to take, from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road, material, earth, stone, and timber necessary for the construction of said railroad; also ground adjacent to such right of way for station buildings, depots, machine shops, side tracks, turnouts, and water stations, not to exceed in amount twenty acres for each station, to the extent of one station for each ten miles of its road.

Since the trucking companies would then own the land, they could post it and charge tolls for using the highway or even crossing to the other side of the road. They could extort money from people just like the railroads did, just for the privilege of visiting a neighbor across the tracks.

Somehow, I find it difficult to feel sorry for the railroads.

Heavier vehicles already pay more in registration fees every place I've lived. Maybe a progressive registration system with higher fees would do, but I doubt it. If registrations were adequate to pay for road damage, one state would undercut the others and nearly all interstate trucks would be registered there, just as is done with ships today.

Perhaps a progressive toll structure based on GVWR would be adequate. Such a system would also bill for usage. Unfortunately, the automated toll systems in use today have a history of accuracy problems. Funny how the automated traffic systems pretty much have problems across the board, but the automated redlight and speed enforcement systems are 100% error free.   Just think of all the useful data the government could collect about your personal driving habits with such a system. Of course, such data would never be used against you. They'd never bother you for that 10-minute blast between toll booths 20 miles apart.  

[pjturbo]

One method that was proposed for Washington, (the state), was and annual fee based on your vehicle weight and the miles it was driven.  Seemed fair to me.

Conservatives screemed bloody murder.

Proposal died.

Pogo said it.  "We havae met the enemy and he is us."

Phil

[NinjaLady]

One method that was proposed for Washington, (the state), was and annual fee based on your vehicle weight and the miles it was driven.  Seemed fair to me.

Generally larger and heavier vehicles use more fuel and pay more taxes due to lower gas mileage.
Seems fair to me.

[Galo]

Interesting discussion....

The simple fact of the matter is that the US spends (devotes) just 2.2% of GDP in infrastructure whether that be roads, railways, bridges, airports, harbors, etc etc while China and Europe spend close to 7%. At that differential in rates of expenditures, would anyone care to ask me how our infrastructure will compare to theirs 20 to 30 years from now? Does not look pretty now, does it?
  

Particularly for roads, it's a hellishly difficult problem because with rising corporate average fuel mileage comes less gas tax income for the feds and the states. Some states and counties have moved to increase their fuel taxes, but the Feds have not increased their fuel tax since 1993.

I say this is getting close to a national emergency. What would I do?
-  Rescind the rights of states and counties to establish their own fuel formulation requirements that have resulted in no less than 11 'major' fuel formulations to be created nation-wide plus 20 more 'boutique' formulations that are city/county/state specific. That oughta reduce price/gallon by a couple dozen cents or more
- replace those savings with an equivalent increase in the Federal fuel tax.

Cost-neutral to all many more $$$$$ to start fixing and expanding our roads again
 

[Snowbird]

Ahhh. An actual for-real thoughtful post!  

Interesting discussion....

The simple fact of the matter is that the US spends (devotes) just 2.2% of GDP in infrastructure whether that be roads, railways, bridges, airports, harbors, etc etc while China and Europe spend close to 7%. At that differential in rates of expenditures, would anyone care to ask me how our infrastructure will compare to theirs 20 to 30 years from now? Does not look pretty now, does it?
  

I think what we are seeing right now is the effect of twenty years of unresolved issues.

Particularly for roads, it's a hellishly difficult problem because with rising corporate average fuel mileage comes less gas tax income for the feds and the states. Some states and counties have moved to increase their fuel taxes, but the Feds have not increased their fuel tax since 1993.

Very true. And the sad thing is that anyone who was/is intimately involved with the requirements of rising fuel economy standards should have (possibly did) foreseen the infrastructure issue going awry but for various reasons, the facts were ignored.

I say this is getting close to a national emergency. What would I do?
-  Rescind the rights of states and counties to establish their own fuel formulation requirements that have resulted in no less than 11 'major' fuel formulations to be created nation-wide plus 20 more 'boutique' formulations that are city/county/state specific. That oughta reduce price/gallon by a couple dozen cents or more
- replace those savings with an equivalent increase in the Federal fuel tax.

Cost-neutral to all many more $$$$$ to start fixing and expanding our roads again
 

Tell us more about these 'major' fuel formulations. Are they specific to the weather or something?

[Snowbird]

One more thing. While this discussion is about roads and bridges, the same problem exists with regard to water and sewage plants, airports, etc.

[spd2918]

Generally larger and heavier vehicles use more fuel and pay more taxes due to lower gas mileage.
Seems fair to me.

This is correct.  We already tax people on miles driven.  Putting a tax meter on your car / bike / etc seems like a logistical nightmare.

It is big trucks that cause our roads to quickly deteriorate.  But charging them more tax or adding a gas tax will just drive up the cost of everything we eat, wear, build with, etc.  How about we spend less elsewhere?

[dm_gsxr]

As I recall, one of the complaints about the tax by miles used was it was a state tax and you couldn't guarantee all the miles were in the state where you were taxed.

(Besides the obvious big brother comments of course).

From back in the early oughts (like 2001 or 2002), Fairfax county was pushing for an increase from .04 to .045 on the sales tax. They thought it was a done deal however there was a big enough movement opposing it that it failed. Of course the business and government were stunned. The main opposition was that the local government was taking in taxes and we kept seeing boondoggles so when they asked for more, we just said "you aren't effectively using what we're giving you, why should we give you more?"

Carl

[Playinthestreet]

Can you explain the difference briefly? Thanks.

If expensed, the total cost is applied to the year in which the repairs were performed.  As a capital improvement it must be depreciated over a multi year period (20 years I think).  The result is the appearance of more (taxable) profit.  Since railroads, in general, have been profitable over the past 20yrs, it probably isn't that big a deal any more.  

[Snowbird]

If expensed, the total cost is applied to the year in which the repairs were performed.  As a capital improvement it must be depreciated over a multi year period (20 years I think).  The result is the appearance of more (taxable) profit.  Since railroads, in general, have been profitable over the past 20yrs, it probably isn't that big a deal any more.  

Thanks. I did not realize capital investments could be written off in a single year at the option of the filer in any situation.

RE-EDIT: I'm also unclear of the rationale of depreciating spending. If the costs are paid in one year, why should their cost be spread out? Time to consult Wiki.

[kyzrex]

Tell us more about these 'major' fuel formulations. Are they specific to the weather or something?
[/quote]

Can't speak about other situations, but here in Northern Kentucky we are sold a different formulated fuel than is used across the river in Ohio, and we use a different formulation for summer vs winter.  This is because of the EPA.  We used to have emissions testing stations, but they were very unreliable and everyone complained about the cost to have their car tested.  A deal was struck where the testing would be stopped, but a fuel formulation designed to cut emissions is now sold in the 5 counties that make up the NoKy region, it does usually cost more for fuel here than across the Ohio river.

[Galo]

Ahhh. An actual for-real thoughtful post!  

  & thks

Tell us more about these 'major' fuel formulations. Are they specific to the weather or something?

Not an expert so I'll want someone else with more expertise in the petroleum industry to speak up, but yes....weather, altitude, metro or rural, smog requirements, etc.
Short read in link below...

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgnonrd.htm

[TuffguyF4i]

I have serious concerns about raising taxes for additional funding.  My money doesn't go to the stuff that is most important right now.  How will that change of the percentage of tax i pay goes from 23.5% to 24.5%?

I was having this discussion with someone last year here in CT.  I looked up some data about state expenditures.  I found that only 4.5% of our annual expenditures went to transportation/infrastructure, on the state level.  

Before you look at additional funding you have to fully explore where you are currently spending your existing funding.  Every government organization will push back when the taxpayer demands more for less.  But private industry has demands to do this every year.  I have customers right now that demand 3% cuts in price every year...year over year.  There is no debating.  Figure out how to do it or loose the business.  So we get really creative.  

[pjturbo]

This is correct.  We already tax people on miles driven.  Putting a tax meter on your car / bike / etc seems like a logistical nightmare.

It is big trucks that cause our roads to quickly deteriorate.  But charging them more tax or adding a gas tax will just drive up the cost of everything we eat, wear, build with, etc.  How about we spend less elsewhere?

Right on!  We could cut our defense budget in half and still have the biggest military in the world.

Phil

[spd2918]

Right on!  We could cut our defense budget in half and still have the biggest military in the world.

Phil

Right on!  We could lose a whole bunch of departments: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

[Snowbird]

I have serious concerns about raising taxes for additional funding.  My money doesn't go to the stuff that is most important right now.  How will that change of the percentage of tax i pay goes from 23.5% to 24.5%?

I was having this discussion with someone last year here in CT.  I looked up some data about state expenditures.  I found that only 4.5% of our annual expenditures went to transportation/infrastructure, on the state level.  

Before you look at additional funding you have to fully explore where you are currently spending your existing funding.  Every government organization will push back when the taxpayer demands more for less.  But private industry has demands to do this every year.  I have customers right now that demand 3% cuts in price every year...year over year.  There is no debating.  Figure out how to do it or loose the business.  So we get really creative.  

Pretty much a PO reply, as is the following:

Right on!  We could cut our defense budget in half and still have the biggest military in the world.

Phil

I fully understand, though, that this topic is wrapped up in politics. Maybe it should be moved there.

[spd2918]

I fully understand, though, that this topic is wrapped up in politics. Maybe it should be moved there.

Maybe you should have started there.  

[Snowbird]

Maybe you should have started there.  

Yeah, silly me. I thought people could look past their attitudes and prejudices and offer concrete ideas. No pun intended.

Some did. Others could not, yourself being a prime example.  

[pjturbo]

If you've read this far in this thread you understand why we can never solve this problem.

Phil

[spd2918]

Who ever would have thought a discussion about public structures and the economy would be political?  DUH!  This is (at least) the second time you've posted a completely political subject outside of PO and they whined about.  

[M.Brane]

 Some people have a hard time discussing things without adding unnecessary political bias or resorting to personal attacks which is exactly why there is a PO here, and why I ignore that part of the board.

 Thoughtful, informed, and respectful discussions of politically charged subjects will never make me whine about their location.

[Snowbird]

/\ This. Thank you.

Another flat foot police officer chimed in on this thread to stir crap up after a post/rant that was nothing but politics. But little matter; I just wish they could learn to control themselves.

Reasonable people really can discuss public policy without calling each other names and regurgitating what the big mouths of their political persuasions tell them to say.

We need to realize that some issues-- in this case our crumbling infrastructure-- will require cooperation and innovation. That's what this thread is seeking: ideas for innovation and cooperation.

[KenH]

Maybe a healthy outlook to take on crumbling infratructure would be it is a cure to climate change because without good transportation systems preople will be forced to rely on local prduction, which reduces transport emissions to the atmosphere.  

[cbsnbiker]

How about treating the trucks like the railroads and simply deeding the rights-of-way to the trucking companies?

Then that huge amount of land could be taxed by local communities and states, as railroad property is.

Rail isn't subsidized?

Forgeive me for interrupting, but (in the USA, at any rate) wasn't the land the tracks are on, in many instances, deeded to the railroads cost free, or at a greatly reduced rate in the first place?

A comprehensive answer to that is complicated.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, the land was purchased by the railroads. In other cases, land was deeded in exchange for stock. Etc.

[M.Brane]

Maybe a healthy outlook to take on crumbling infratructure would be it is a cure to climate change because without good transportation systems preople will be forced to rely on local prduction, which reduces transport emissions to the atmosphere.  

 So people with long commutes, and those who use the highway system for recreation (sport-touring) will just be collateral damage then? Guess I need to trade the VFR for a dual-sport bike. Preferably an electric one.

 There was a time in this country when railroads ruled when it came to hauling heavy freight. We have spent the last 50 or so years shifting that to trucking ( a much more flexible, and adaptable way to transport goods), and tearing out many of the smaller rail lines. Rail as the predominant shipping method is a bygone era.

 It's obvious that many here have never seen registration fees, and fuel costs for a large combination vehicle that runs interstate. Like taxes in general revenues are only an issue to those who receive, and squander them.  Taxes/fees ( or whatever they are calling them today) have never been higher yet the services they are supposed to provide are in steady decline. Where is all the money going?

 It ain't trickling down to me that's for sure.