Future of Transportation under Republicans (Condoleezza Rice, poll, Clinton, 9/11)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Top-secret information, or it might as well be: Gas taxes only pay for about half the cost of building and maintaining roads. When Ike was President the federal gas tax was as much as a postage stamp per gallon. And cars only got about 12 mpg. There is no political sentiment to raise it at all, certainly not to the present price of a postage stamp. What is that, 45 cents? Been a while since I bought any. So the Highway Trust Fund is bust and we have to beg the Feds for any money to maintain roads. It doesn't matter which party is in office.
It's funny you mention that. Look at my second post about a valuable piece of infrastructure his stimulus caused to happen here, with no local match at all, and what the local 'Republicans' did to it.
in reading your second post, i dont find any mention of republicans blocking anything. it seems to me that some concerned citizens and a state senator are pushing for changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01
Yes, yes, exactly! What ever happened to compromise? Bi-partisanship? It's turned into unless you have the majority in any area, you can't accomplish much. When it comes to the races for Congress and Senate, I will not be voting for a single Republican. What good are you if all you do is say 'No', and that's mainly because you want the president to fail.
dont forget that in 2009 the republicans were in the minority, and they WANTED to work with the democrats. the problem is that the democrats essentially told the republicans to go pound sand because they won the election and they had the reigns of power, and the republicans didnt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01
I wouldn't have the first clue if the money is going to the roads, partially to the roads, or whatever, but my whole point behind the idea is that every cent in the tolls needs to go to the roads. The toll shouldn't be expected to produce a profit on the road, or even fully pay for work on the road, it's just to help out with it so that when combined with taxes, it can pay for it.
The reduced traffic on the roads that would happen should actually be referred to as a good thing. This means the roads wont have so much pressure on them, meaning less maintaining, the roads wont need to be widened for a much longer time, and perhaps less people are going as far or getting on it at all, and perhaps even consider transit more favorably.
sorry but toll roads dont reduce the amount of traffic. the other problem with toll roads is that the money goes into the states general fund rather than being put into a special account for road maintenance only. one more thing about toll roads and bridges is that all of them were supposed to eliminate the tolls once the projects were paid for through the tolls. again the problem is politicians that look at them as revenue producers, and the people who decide to continue paying the tolls because that is what they have always done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico
When you say things which sound ignorant ... people will begin to think ...., oh, well, you know the rest.
i checked the link, and it seems they were talking about projects the MIGHT get stimulus funds. the reality is that the steal from us package funds went to projects that should never have been authorized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic_Vega
Correct me if i'm wrong. If Amtrak subsidies are ended (most operating subsidies for routes under 750 miles actually come from state and local sources) and the carrier goes belly up, wouldn't this return the freight railroads a common carrier obligation to provide passenger service on the existing Amtrak routes?
Personally think Amtrak is as much of a waste of money as the Interstate Highway System.
amtrack is a waste of money, they lose money on every rider they have. if amtrak were privatized, and actually had to make money to stay in operation, you can bet that the private companies would work to keep ticket prices as low as possible while still turning a profit, and the service would be much better than it is now.
as for the interstate system, that is not a waste of money. remember that much of the products you buy are transported along the interstates, trains dont go every where you know. its cheaper to load up a few 18 wheelers with say milk from your local dairy farm and transport it s 150 or so miles, than it is to load up the trucks, haul it to the train station, transport it to another city 100 miles away, the off load it onto more trucks to haul it to the small towns where the train doesnt run.
Four years ago, it seemed to be a non-partisan issue. Everybody in every party agreed that transportation/infrastructure was the key to getting the country working. Well, it seems after Obama got in office, that agreement fizzled like a pop-rock. Getting a transportation bill to pass with Republicans has been futile, and the only accomplishment has been to get enough going through to keep what work was already getting done going while not really starting anything new...a measure that has essentially insured nothing beneficial has come of this money.
]
Eh, it's coming if O is re-elected. It will be part of the Obama forced move to redistribute the wealth of the suburbs to pay for the cities.
The tolls can at least cover the cost of the employees there. I mean they shouldn't need to get that much pay and benefits. There's a ton of people who would gladly take 10$ an hour to sit on their butt (or stand up if they chose) to wait on cars to come, take the money, and then press a 'pass' button.
In Dallas the tollway is automated, no cash. A camera takes a pic of your license plate and bills you if you don't have a toll tag.
Transportation economics is a multi-faceted discipline, mostly because the cost structure differs between the modes -- truckers directly pay out 95+% of what they take in, because Uncle Sam provides the right-of-way; for the railroads, on the other hand, about 1/3 of what comes in goes to overhead, because, with a few exceptions, they furnish their own physical plant, and pay stiff property taxes. There are, of curse, variations for carriers linked to the public sector.
Thus, Amtrak runs huge losses, but shutting it down won't save much cash outflow, because it furnishes the right-of-way for several commuter-hauling authorities. It is also subject to considerable political tampering by both parties. The late conservative Democratic Senators Mike Mansfield(MT) and Frank Moss(UT) both used political influence to sustain Amtrak Long Distance in their home states, as did Republican Trent Lott(MS). Amtrak's coach repair facility is in Indianapolis, a city it doesn't serve, save for one late-night run to ferry the "bad-ordered" equipment to and from Chicago. (In case anyone's wondering, BTW, that sagacious decision was made way back in 1970, and passenger-car repair facilities are few in number.)
The much-vaunted High Speed Rail System ballyhooed at the Inauguration four years ago is mostly pie-in-the-sky. For several reasons (drawbridges and outdated electrical catenary being the most difficult), major improvement in speeds between New York and Washington is unlikely. The California project will grow -- slowly -- but the biggest bottleneck; the mountain passes north of Los Angeles, is a long way from resolution.
And did anybody really believe that the proposed El-Paso-Albuquerque-Denver-Billings (Good Grief! - Metro population of Billings is less than 110,000!) was anything but a sop to politics.
Yet underneath all this, market forces are doing what they are supposed to do. The volatility of gasoline prices discourages solo auto travel, the network of mega-buses is both growing and moving toward centralized co-ordination, and recent college graduates are "gentrifying" neighborhoods where better public transportation is a factor. It will take some time -- it always has, always will. And the nature of human want will impel it back toward the auto-centric culture if and when the fuel supply dilemma is addressed -- whether the politicians like it or not.
"The mills of the gods grind slowly, but exceedingly fine": (Euripides?)
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-02-2012 at 04:37 AM..
Four years ago, it seemed to be a non-partisan issue. Everybody in every party agreed that transportation/infrastructure was the key to getting the country working. Well, it seems after Obama got in office, that agreement fizzled like a pop-rock. Getting a transportation bill to pass with Republicans has been futile, and the only accomplishment has been to get enough going through to keep what work was already getting done going while not really starting anything new...a measure that has essentially insured nothing beneficial has come of this money.
I can only begin to imagine how much worse this would be under the Romney/Ryan plan. Here's part of a statement from former Governor Dukakis why when it comes to infrastructure, Romney seems completely incompetent:
"But on the infrastructure stuff itself, the guy was just really pathetic. I mean, I was all for the fix-it first thing. I think you got a fix it first before you start new stuff, although there were a number of new projects that we wanted to move on. But he was kind of detached. He had a very weak transportation team. It was a guy named Daniel Grabauskas who was the secretary of transportation, who now of all things has been hired to run the Honolulu transit system. Don’t ask me what they expect him to do out there. But he was very ineffective, very weak. They just couldn’t get anything done. Projects that should have taken months took years. And as you know, here in the state it’s not just the highways, but it’s the Metropolitan transit system and the commuter rail system. We had stations, T stations, that were under reconstruction for years under this guy. And I’ll tell you one story which is typical. The Ashmont station on the red line is a big station in the Dorchester section of Boston. And it was kind of an old station and so they’re going to do a major reconstruction and do some transit-oriented development there. So a team was designated to do affordable housing next to Ashmont Station. And they did it. In about 18 months it was up and running, leased and all that stuff. The station project, which went way over budget, went on and on and on. And at some press conference some reporter asked Romney, ‘What about Ashmont?’ Romney had no idea where Ashmont station was.
You know he’s always been a puzzle to me. So we ended up with bridge projects that should have taken twelve months that were taking three or four years. When I said the state’s infrastructure was a wreck when he left it, that was not an exaggeration I remember driving up 128, and honest to God nine out of ten bridges were covered with rust. I mean they couldn’t even paint bridges. And as you know, if you don’t paint the bridge for 200,000 bucks, pretty soon you’re gonna have a reconstruction job for 3 million. They couldn’t do it. He was kind of detached. And then of course in his last year and a half, it was all about the presidency, so we never saw him."
This is barely the icing on the cake though. Just imagine what our nation's transportation would be like after reading this next exert from Dellinger's and Dukakis's Q&A:
Dellinger: "I agree that where money is appropriated, to what mode, is a very key factor in determining outcome. And when I looked into Romney’s budget, he did seem to put his dollars where his mouth was."
Dukakis: "Just couldn’t execute. That was his problem. Couldn’t execute."
Dellinger: "That sounds so subjective, though. What exactly does that mean?"
Dukakis: "He couldn’t get it done."
Dellinger: "His DOT couldn’t get things done… on time?"
Dukakis: "He just wasn’t engaged. I mean that’s Romney. He’s kind of out there someplace. He just doesn’t get into it. For one thing I rode the T. It wasn’t an act. I was riding it since I was five. It’s amazing what you learn when you ride the transit system. And you know, I’m a huge national rail passenger guy. I was on the Amtrak board. Romney has just announced he’s for abolishing, getting rid of all Amtrak subsidies. I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Is he serious? Amtrak just carried 30 million people this past year. I mean if this country doesn’t need a first-class national rail passenger system, I don’t know what it does need."
Dellinger: "Paul Ryan‘s budget opines that ““high-speed rail and other new intercity rail projects should be pursued only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial services.†I assume you disagree that all new rail projects should be done as profitable businesses only?"
Dukakis: "There’s no profitable— Well, we are making money on the Northeast corridor and the Acela. But were spending $40 billion in public subsidies on highways, $16 billion on air, and a billion and a half on Amtrak. Don’t these guys understand? I mean where are they? I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Every mode of transportation, as you know, is subsidized. And rail and highway’s and air are far more heavily subsidized than rail. You go to Europe you go to Japan—Kitty and I went to South Korea a year ago where I’d been stationed back in the mid-50s—and it’s embarrassing coming back from the United States after you’ve been over there. My God, they’ve got the best airport in the country, terrific transit in Seoul. Two high-speed rail lines. Couldn’t find my unit in the DMZ because there’s a huge new commuter rail station in what used to be a rice paddy when I was there. And here we are just stumbling around. I mean I just don’t know what these guys are talking about. Anyway that’s my take on it, for whatever it’s worth."
That's the saddest part about it. You give motor vehicles a monopoly for decades, essentially destroy 95% of private transit companies, make everything have to appeal to a car, and all the while use massive susidies to do so...and that STILL isn't enough money to even keep pace...but this isn't enough for you. You have to completely eliminate public transit by taking the already trivial subsidies, compared to highways, away because you think they should make a profit. And yet it's because of policies, like this, that go against transit, that have caused them to be unprofitable in the first place. I would be VERY interested to see the businessman who would decide to take on a rail service that never makes a profit...unless he's just going to keep the line that runs between Washington and NY running. Wouldn't that be a wonderful boon for our country?
I'm afraid that if I couldn't agree with anything else Governor Dukakis ever had to say, this, and especially that last part would be impossible not to. Japan, China, almost every European country. They're blowing us away and it is greatly thanks to their innovation in infrastructure. They actually have a decent number of people that use bicycles for more than recreation. Plent of people who take some form of public transportation, and have actually had high speed rail going for years. Now, I'd propose for you all this question that the governor couldn't quite wrap his head around either.
What the hell are they thinking?
This is the republican preferred mode mode of transportation for the future of America. Oil is for the rich.
As soon as I read that name, I didn't need go go any further.
When considering why a bill should or should not pass, we need to read the bill to find out what's in it (Nancy Pelosi!). More than likely, there is good reason for Republicans to block Democrat bills. They usually have them packed full of spending and other things that are not germane to the intent of the bill.
Look at how much crap they hid within the so-called "health care" bill, that no one was allowed to read before they rammed it down our throats.
The GOP seemed to think that throwing $4 trillion down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan w/o having the funds was a good idea.
Most of us think that was pretty dumb.
Spending taxpayer dollars on improvements in America makes much better sense.
Oh, so we should have just ignored the attacks of 9/11/01 in which over 3,000 Americans were killed. After all, it was only a few radical Muslims that carried it out. The rest of them (Muslims) are peacful and kind and don't want to kill us, even though their so-called "holy book" tells them to kill Christians, Jews, and anyone not Muslim. And of course, their goal is to Islamicize the West, and make it subserviant to Sharia.
Right. Going to war against these people was totally unjustified and a waste of money.
But, that's okay. Barack Obama has helped the Muslims; the Islamist Mulslim Brotherhood has now taken control of both Egypt and Libya, and is instituting Sharia. This means, of course, that Muslim women will not be allowed an education, must keep themselves covered, will be subjected to genitle mutilation and other traditions, including being stoned to death for daring to speak out, or if they have "let themselves" be raped.
This is all great news for women, and the world. Thank you, Barack Obama!
Oh, so we should have just ignored the attacks of 9/11/01 in which over 3,000 Americans were killed. After all, it was only a few radical Muslims that carried it out. The rest of them (Muslims) are peacful and kind and don't want to kill us, even though their so-called "holy book" tells them to kill Christians, Jews, and anyone not Muslim. And of course, their goal is to Islamicize the West, and make it subserviant to Sharia.
Right. Going to war against these people was totally unjustified and a waste of money.
But, that's okay. Barack Obama has helped the Muslims; the Islamist Mulslim Brotherhood has now taken control of both Egypt and Libya, and is instituting Sharia. This means, of course, that Muslim women will not be allowed an education, must keep themselves covered, will be subjected to genitle mutilation and other traditions, including being stoned to death for daring to speak out, or if they have "let themselves" be raped.
This is all great news for women, and the world. Thank you, Barack Obama!
Bush ignored the warnings. Then had US forces invade the wrong country for WMD's, none of which were found, and never went after bin laden either.
Yeah we have no money for this, but we do have the money for another huge tax cut.
This idea that tax cuts must have to be "paid for" must be put to rest. It is an idea that Democrats use to foment hatred for the rich, by convincing people that "the rich" don't pay their "fair share" and that all money belongs to the government, and that the benevolent government allows them to keep some of their earnings, even though it deserves all of them.
It has been proven time, and time again, that when taxes are cut, revenue to the federal government increases, it does not decrease. This is because of the increase in economic activity that occurs, and the increase in jobs that results from that activity. More taxpayers, more revenue. It's that simple.
When taxes are raised, it has the effect of reducing federal revenue, because it reduces economic activity, and also changes people's behavior so that they look for ways to shelter their income from taxation.
Democrats will never learn! But this is one reason why Barack Obama's policies have failed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dukakis! Hahaha!
