Roads and bridges still crumbling, now hurting the economy.

[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.