Will Pittsburgh have a bridge collapse soon? (Oakmont, Saxonburg: 2015, luxury)

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Trust me, the pedestrian sidewalks on the bridges have no salt being used. The pedestrian sidewalks are where the snow goes when they plow. In other words, no one cares about the people walking. Since walkers and cyclists are so used to no salt anyway, I feel the salt argument is false. Lets face it all the giant SUV's and empty pickups running around are the biggest issue. If only the IQ's were higher in the US, that would be great. I mean driving an empty pickup every day for what reason? Ego? Testosterone? To pound one's chest and feel like a man? It sure is odd. Go to Europe and you won't see all these pickups everywhere. People rent them as needed or they are REAL work trucks. Most of them in our region are not used as intended at all. Maybe once or twice a year at best. What a joke, but we all pay for it because they are heavy and destroy our roads.

The core problem with PA roads is the pitiful amount of money our commonwealth has historically put into maintaining them, regardless of which party may be in power at the moment. Scapegoating against pickup truck drivers is a red herring.

[gg]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

The core problem with PA roads is the pitiful amount of money our commonwealth has historically put into maintaining them, regardless of which party may be in power at the moment. Scapegoating against pickup truck drivers is a red herring.

You are shifting the topic. Drivers DO control what they drive. We are VERY wasteful! Of course our roads are a mess because our government controlled roadways. It would obviously be better to sub all the work out to companies that actually have employees that work for a living, not city/county/state workers that hang around and do nothing.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

You are shifting the topic. Drivers DO control what they drive. We are VERY wasteful! Of course our roads are a mess because our government controlled roadways. It would obviously be better to sub all the work out to companies that actually have employees that work for a living, not city/county/state workers that hang around and do nothing.

How am I shifting the topic? You posted a link saying Pittsburgh has the highest proportion of deficient bridges, along with the aside that we need more walkers and cyclists and fewer drivers. I'm casting doubt on the premise that compared to other cities with better-maintained bridges and roadways, Pittsburgh has significantly more drivers of heavier, more road-damaging vehicles. Rather, what sets the Burgh apart is less money devoted to repairing these structures. As bad as our state tends to be at road maintenance, it's a lot less of a pipedream to try and make them get their act together than expect people to trade in or give up their vehicles.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I thought it was Bill Clinton?

Nah, let's just go back all the way to Geo. Washington!

[ditchdigger]

Lets face it all the giant SUV's and empty pickups running around are the biggest issue.

I'll give credit where credit is due. I think it was in an earlier discussion that Brian pointed out how disproportionately it is that heavy trucks cause wear and tear on highway infrastructure, and I did a little research at that time and the results support that claim. Pickups and SUVs, though heavier than many cars, are not so much heavier as to make them any more of a factor than the average auotmobile.

I also want it to be clear that I'm not discounting the advantages that walking or cycling might offer. I will argue though, that claiming more walking and cycling would reduce wear and tear on the bridges by any appreciable amount is silly.

[hinsey86]

I foresee catastrophe coming when one of those pick up drivers spends a day at Kennywood getting plastered then tries to drive across one of those doomed bridges.....and it will be only worse when the drunken fool tries dodge the tea party members protesting obamas failure to fix them. But it may put us in the limelight again.

[BrianTH]

Given the way we finance road/bridge maintenance, and given the point referenced above about road damage going up much faster with weight than fuel use, I'd guess that holding all else equal it would in fact be a net loss for the condition of our roads/bridges if more people in passenger vehicles (probably including SUVs and lighter-duty pickups) switched to biking and walking. Basically, under the current system we need those fuel taxes to subsidize road/bridge use by heavier commercial vehicles.

Of course it would be a major public policy error to conclude from that analysis that we should discourage people from walking and biking, because there would be many benefits to people doing more of that. Rather, the obvious conclusion is that we need a comprehensive overhaul of how we pay for road/bridge maintenance and repair.

Incidentally, assuming our bridge inspections are working (and they do--most of the time), what should happen is that bridges get closed before they collapse. Widespread road and bridge closures are less dramatic of a future scenario, but from an economic perspective that scenario should be extremely concerning nonetheless.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Cyclists and walkers don't pay the fuel tax, so that'd make things worse, not better. We need more SUV and pickup truck drivers.

The cost of building and maintaining roadways is approximately $3.50 per gallon of fuel; the fuel tax is $0.50 per gallon. WTF do you think the extra $3 comes from? The magic money tree?

[ditchdigger]

Originally Posted by jimmyev

The cost of building and maintaining roadways is approximately $3.50 per gallon of fuel; the fuel tax is $0.50 per gallon. WTF do you think the extra $3 comes from? The magic money tree?

Is it? That seems pretty exaggerated. Can you cite a source?

And even if it's true, that doesn't negate the fact that unless you're living a survivalist lifestyle, completely off the grid, most of your daily needs depend, at some point in their travel, on the existence of passable roads and bridges for them to reach you.

[BrianTH]

Tracing how much of road costs are actually paid by fuel taxes is a complicated business. Just to give one example, Pennsylvania has fuel taxes, but at the same time exempts fuel from sales taxes. That is economically equivalent to not exempting fuel from the sales tax, but then transferring the same amount of money from the state's general fund and relevant County funds to the state transportation fund.

So if you look at the net fuel tax, meaning net of all taxes AND exemptions for fuel, it ends up paying for a lot less of the state's road costs than the prima facie accounting would suggest, with this hidden transfer from the general fund making up the difference.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that if you increased the ratio of road/bridge wear to fuel used--which would be the case if bikes/walking were substituting for passenger vehicles but not heavier commercial vehicles--you would get an increased gap between the money going into the transportation fund, including this hidden transfer from the general fund, and the state's road/bridge costs.