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.
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.
Oh, and I'd also like to throw this out there to if anyone wants to look at this aspect too. Does it seem to anybody else like at least part of the Republican's reason for trying to trash transportation at every opportunity is some kind of resentment, or something else? Maybe not EVERY area of transportation, but at the very least public transportation and/or anything that the stimulus helped put together.
Let me give you this example. I used to live in this city called Anderson, SC, and stimulus money combined with some state money was used to pay off completely with no local match for this new road connecting two of the city/county's busest North/South highways with an East/West connector (which since it got started in 2009 or 2010, the name has stuck unofficially). Now, keep in mind this is a road that people had been hoping for since 1990. So, it sounds wonderful that they get a road that they've been hoping for without having to add a sales tax or local match or anything, right?
Well, maybe it would have gone over better if that HADN'T been the case.
Almost immediately the state senator for that area, Kevin Bryant, and several citizens began crying that the road should be only two lanes, not the proposed four lanes. This effort was unsuccessful, but they put up a good fight. Next, the zoning commission unanimously agreed that the best zoning would be to have 116 acres of some form of commercial zoning while having about 24 acres as residential. Well, now thanks to the county council's vote, less than 10 acres are going to be commercial, despite the fact that it's a FOUR lane road that will connect another FOUR lane road with a SIX lane road, and the traffic is expected to involve tens of thousands of cars each day, majority of the areas attached to it have been classified as perfect for commercial development, there's already a huge oversupply of housing, and one of the main proponents on the council who got it zoned residential said HE WOULD NEVER, EVER LIVE ON OR NEAR THAT ROAD OR KIND OF TRAFFIC AND BELIEVES FEW OTHER WILL EITHER.
we do need to eliminate the subsidies for amtrak. right now they lose money on every passenger they carry, and the more people they carry, the more money they lose. if amtrak cant support itself, it needs to go away.
here in tucson our city government is building the sunlink light rail system, it runs through the downtown area, and is projected to have $300,000 in revenue with operating costs of $4,000,000 in the first year, and it doesnt get much better than that in later years. add to that the heavy construction costs, the inevitable cost overruns, etc. and the proposition is a money loser in a big way. they could have saved a ton of money by adding another bus route or two to the downtown area instead.
if government keeps spending money like it grows on trees, this country is going to be in serious trouble in a few years.
we do need to eliminate the subsidies for amtrak. right now they lose money on every passenger they carry, and the more people they carry, the more money they lose. if amtrak cant support itself, it needs to go away.
here in tucson our city government is building the sunlink light rail system, it runs through the downtown area, and is projected to have $300,000 in revenue with operating costs of $4,000,000 in the first year, and it doesnt get much better than that in later years. add to that the heavy construction costs, the inevitable cost overruns, etc. and the proposition is a money loser in a big way. they could have saved a ton of money by adding another bus route or two to the downtown area instead.
if government keeps spending money like it grows on trees, this country is going to be in serious trouble in a few years.
First thing, that asphalt road you drive on every day doesn't come close to paying for itself either, even with dedicated gas taxes. The city I live in would shut down if the public transit system were to go, and it is even inadequate for the demand. The state level politicians won't fund rail lines between the #2 and #3 largest jobs nodes in the state, but can get a billion dollars in tax money for a highway that goes absolutely no where.
Secondly, the cost of infrastructure construction in the US is way out of line with the rest of the developed world. A subway or light rail line in western Europe costs approximately half what it does here. That has to be addressed.
First thing, that asphalt road you drive on every day doesn't come close to paying for itself either, even with dedicated gas taxes. The city I live in would shut down if the public transit system were to go, and it is even inadequate for the demand. The state level politicians won't fund rail lines between the #2 and #3 largest jobs nodes in the state, but can get a billion dollars in tax money for a highway that goes absolutely no where.
Secondly, the cost of infrastructure construction in the US is way out of line with the rest of the developed world. A subway or light rail line in western Europe costs approximately half what it does here. That has to be addressed.
perhaps i should clarify a bit on the sunlink system. the whole route is less than two miles! it would be fine if the system ran several miles and connected the east side, the north, the west, etc. to downtown and to each other, but it doesnt. in fact it runs through streets that are already too narrow, and it will just make things worse.
as far as roads go, i know they dont pay for themselves either, mostly because the various governments siphon off the gas tax money for everything under the sun EXCEPT roads.
Hey lets end subsidies for air and roads too. Lets be even about it.
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.
