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.
You are wrong in the sense that cost and budget are not interchangeable terms. A budget is basically a quantitative plan, whereas cost refers to value that is sacrificed for future benefit. The study measures cost effectiveness (among other things) with respect to state highway systems, not the budget.
My takeaway from the study is that MoDOT is doing a superb job with the resources that they have. The strategy appears to be one of cost leadership, which should make taxpayers happy since waste appears to be minimal in comparison to other states.
You failed to address the question. Where is the margin for expansion going to come from, when so little is being spent on Missouri highways?
And you failed to read your own source. They reached the cost/mile figure by dividing the DOT budget by mileage. It's in the report. The budget directly represents total cost, no different than any other budget. Accounting 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
I'm not suggesting that Missouri should make a bigger pie (though I don't think that would hurt), just that St Charles has earned a bigger slice.
I do agree that we need more infrastructure investment, including in St. Charles. But...
All of the state highways are being maintained in St. Charles. It is getting the same treatment as the rest of the state. Jeff City has no resources for expansion anywhere in the state. Missouri will have to raise taxes or fees to provide for highway expansion. And with the Hancock Amendment, voters will have to make the choice.
Last edited by RisingAurvandil; 03-27-2017 at 07:20 PM..
You are wrong in the sense that cost and budget are not interchangeable terms. A budget is basically a quantitative plan, whereas cost refers to value that is sacrificed for future benefit. The study measures cost effectiveness (among other things) with respect to state highway systems, not the budget.
My takeaway from the study is that MoDOT is doing a superb job with the resources that they have. The strategy appears to be one of cost leadership, which should make taxpayers happy since waste appears to be minimal in comparison to other states. Air, marine, etc., are irrelevant for the purposes of the study. However, if you are aware of a study on those areas, then please share it. It would be interesting to look at.
I'm not suggesting that Missouri should make a bigger pie (though I don't think that would hurt), just that St Charles has earned a bigger slice.
It could be worse, Missouri could be full of toll roads like here in Florida which I hate.
Here in FL it's a racket like the speed and red light cameras. Many of these toll booths no longer have workers manning them, it's automated, but in most cases they have a camera take a photo of your plate and they then send you an invoice for your toll booth usage. The last time I used a toll road last year what should have been a $2.00 bill turned into something like $5 because of the admin fees for processing my "payment" Here in FL our drivers licenses cost a lot more and our registration for a new vehicle in the state cost a few hundred bucks too! A lot more than Missouri charges. Yet the roads don't look much better than Missouri's unless it's a brand new road. US 41 on the other side of the bridge from me is littered with pot holes, poorly paved. I don't know where all this money down here goes.
You failed to address the question. Where is the margin for expansion going to come from, when so little is being spent on Missouri highways?
And you failed to read your own source. They reached the cost/mile figure by dividing the DOT budget by mileage. It's in the report. The budget directly represents total cost, no different than any other budget.
Let me try to break this down for you in the most elementary way possible. Pretend you are the director of MoDOT. Do you want an increased budget? Of course you do because what director wouldn't. Do you want increased costs? Absolutely not, because that means that your money won't go as far. Budget and costs are not the same thing, and to suggest they are is one of the most asinine things I've ever read. Just because a department has an approved amount budgeted, doesn't mean they have to spend that amount. Hence the terms "below budget" and "over budget." And like I've said before, the report measures cost effectiveness, not whether or not the budget is appropriate. Budgets are planned, and costs are incurred. You can't incur a budget. Also, the true cost of something is very difficult to pin down. That is why the report used disbursements to estimate the cost.
As far as this margin that you keep talking about, it is up to the director of MoDOT to get creative and find ways to cut costs. I no longer live in the state, but if I did I would probably approve of a modest gas tax hike. Until something like that gets approved, it is up to the director to find solutions internally.
MODOT says they can't afford to build more highways in St. Charles but they just need to do creative stuff, like replace all the roads in Springfield with vinyl tile. Easy-peasy.
Budget and costs are not the same thing, and to suggest they are is one of the most asinine things I've ever read. Just because a department has an approved amount budgeted, doesn't mean they have to spend that amount. Hence the terms "below budget" and "over budget." And like I've said before, the report measures cost effectiveness, not whether or not the budget is appropriate. Budgets are planned, and costs are incurred. You can't incur a budget. Also, the true cost of something is very difficult to pin down. That is why the report used disbursements to estimate the cost.
According to your report, MoDOT's costs essentially match the budget. Your distinction is moot.
To make matters worse, MoDOT is currently in deficit spending. They are literally spending the state's emergency cash reserves. They have laid-off 1000+ people and closed dozens of facilities. They don't have enough revenue for highway expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
As far as this margin that you keep talking about, it is up to the director of MoDOT to get creative and find ways to cut costs. I no longer live in the state, but if I did I would probably approve of a modest gas tax hike. Until something like that gets approved, it is up to the director to find solutions internally.
That's what I wanted to squeeze outta' you. Thank you. Get creative? By your own admission, they are already one of the most efficient DOTs. You can't squeeze blood from a flower.
The Feds match highway money at an 80:20 ratio. Despite that, our 20% is still far too low. I believe we have the smallest per-mile budget in America. Likewise, other states are investing more and being rewarded with a much larger share of the pie.
I am curious where you got this 80:20 figure. Do you have a source for that?
According to this MoDOT newsletter from March/2017 the state is putting up (in millions) $1,557 vs. the fed's $911. That means the state is contributing 63%, not 20%.
I am curious where you got this 80:20 figure. Do you have a source for that?
According to this MoDOT newsletter from March/2017 the state is putting up (in millions) $1,557 vs. the fed's $911. That means the state is contributing 63%, not 20%.
Not exactly, but I see your point. It's misleading because MoDOT also pays for the Department of Revenue, the Highway Patrol, various local highway departments, and non-eligible state projects. None of those are eligible for federal highway funding.
Federal highway revenue has also been decreasing for 20+ years, but that's another ballgame.
Not exactly, but I see your point. It's misleading because MoDOT also pays for the Department of Revenue, the Highway Patrol, various local highway departments, and non-eligible state projects. None of those are eligible for federal highway funding.
Federal highway revenue has also been decreasing for 20+ years, but that's another ballgame.
The 80:20 ratio only applies to highway improvement costs that qualify for federal funding. The state pays 20% and the feds pay 80%. If the feds are willing to pay 80% of the costs, why would the state want to pay more than 20%? That makes no sense at all. How and why are you proposing that the state pay a higher percentage of the costs for projects that qualify for federal funding?
Now, if you look at total revenue that is allocated to state roads and bridges, the split is basically 50:50. If you include the revenue that is allocated to cities and counties, then the state pays an even higher percentage.
Is it too late for you to get a refund for Acct 101?
The 80:20 ratio only applies to highway improvement costs that qualify for federal funding. The state pays 20% and the feds pay 80%. If the feds are willing to pay 80% of the costs, why would the state want to pay more than 20%? That makes no sense at all. How and why are you proposing that the state pay a higher percentage of the costs for projects that qualify for federal funding?
Now, if you look at total revenue that is allocated to state roads and bridges, the split is basically 50:50. If you include the revenue that is allocated to cities and counties, then the state pays an even higher percentage.
Is it too late for you to get a refund for Acct 101?
Which is funny, because if we re-visit your earlier post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
Much of the funding comes from the federal government and is distributed to the states. St. Charles is growing and its voice is getting louder, while STL City continues to shrink. Obviously, St. Charles will continue to get a bigger piece of the pie (budget), and it should. Nobody is calling for a tax increase, just a higher percentage of the current budget should go to St. Charles.
Are you contradicting your bolded statements? The first is vague, but the second has certainly been contradicted.
And when I stated 80:20, sourced directly from MoDOT's webpage, I obviously was referring to federal highway projects. Of course the state can spend money on anything it prefers, regardless of federal funding.
The problem arises when the state has insufficient funds to secure the 80% match. The federal government is willing to give X dollars to MO, but if the state can't provide its 20% match, the funds will be sent elsewhere. I remember reading that in the Post a while back. I imagine this is why MoDOT is currently spending its emergency reserves. It's not technically deficit spending, but it doesn't seem sustainable.
I stand by my statement that MoDOT does not have the financial capacity for expansion projects. We can disagree, and that's ok. I do support infrastructure investment, including in St. Charles, but not at the expense of fiscal responsibility. Missouri lawmakers clearly believe that the department should not be expanding its system. If they believed otherwise, they would be raising the fuel tax or reallocating general funds from other agencies.
Which is funny, because if we re-visit your earlier post...
Are you contradicting your bolded statements? The first is vague, but the second has certainly been contradicted.
And when I stated 80:20, sourced directly from MoDOT's webpage, I obviously was referring to federal highway projects. Of course the state can spend money on anything it prefers, regardless of federal funding.
The problem arises when the state has insufficient funds to secure the 80% match. The federal government is willing to give X dollars to MO, but if the state can't provide its 20% match, the funds will be sent elsewhere. I remember reading that in the Post a while back. I imagine this is why MoDOT is currently spending its emergency reserves. It's not technically deficit spending, but it doesn't seem sustainable.
I stand by my statement that MoDOT does not have the financial capacity for expansion projects. We can disagree, and that's ok. I do support infrastructure investment, including in St. Charles, but not at the expense of fiscal responsibility. Missouri lawmakers clearly believe that the department should not be expanding its system. If they believed otherwise, they would be raising the fuel tax or reallocating general funds from other agencies.
I consider $911 million ($709 million of that went state roads & bridges) of federal funding to be significant, but perhaps you don't. I'm not actively calling for a tax increase, but if I still lived in the state and it was on the ballot, then I'd probably vote for a modest gas tax hike. There is no contradiction there either.
Yes, the federal funding is capped, meaning that feds will pay 80% of the eligible costs up to a certain amount. The state is on its own after it hits that limit. However, your own source does not suggest that the state is having trouble coming up with its 20% share for federally funded projects. In fact, it suggests otherwise.
Quote:
The majority of federal revenue is dedicated to pay for a share of eligible highway improvement costs. The federal share for the eligible costs is typically 80 percent, with the state or local government providing a 20 percent match. The amount of federal funding available is fixed, so some eligible costs may not receive reimbursement.
The bolded text in the above quote suggests that the state did not receive federal funding for eligible costs because the state had already hit the authorized limit.
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.
Here in FL our drivers licenses cost a lot more and our registration for a new vehicle in the state cost a few hundred bucks too! A lot more than Missouri charges. Yet the roads don't look much better than Missouri's unless it's a brand new road. US 41 on the other side of the bridge from me is littered with pot holes, poorly paved. I don't know where all this money down here goes.
. Also, the true cost of something is very difficult to pin down. That is why the report used disbursements to estimate the cost. 
