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.
If we privatize (using your example) roads and allow companies to charge a toll, compared to busier roads in more populated areas, less-traveled rural roads would either (a) require significantly higher tolls; or (b) receive significantly less funding for maintenance or new construction; or (c) both. Had the highway system been privatized in the Eisenhower era, many roads in middle America never would have been built in the first instance due to economic feasibility. This should be self-evident, really.
If we leave transportation and infrastructure open to the "free market" the more sparsely populated middle America will suffer tremendously.
Here, in PA, we have several larger corporations that seem to get every State highway contract in their perspective areas. I really have no idea how you deal with these 'problems' or if they are even problems? In my area (NEPA) a contractor from Philadelphia does most of our State roadwork (James D. Morrissey Inc.). They also own at least one of our local stone quarries: James D. Morrissey Inc. – Construction, Ready Mix Concrete, Crushed Stone, Asphalt, Sand & Gravel – James Morissey Construction. How do you get competitive contracts when one company owns the source of the materials used in the construction?
We worry about our environment do we do not let everybody mine everyplace. The Morrissey operation already turned a mountain into crushed rock over the years.
To efficiently lay asphalt or pour concrete; your source of materials has to be located close to the job site. It also has to produce enough materials to keep paving machines moving at full speed - there is the efficiency. We also need the best materials so that jobs do not turn into workfare.
About 20 years ago their company laid defective asphalt and potholes appeared after just one month. I complained to my local Representative and he told me that they would hold the company responsible and fix the problem. That never happened and our State fixed the potholes; of course the new pavement had a short shelf life with that bad start. So; that is another part of my question - how do we hold these super-companies responsible for their own work?
If we privatize (using your example) roads and allow companies to charge a toll, compared to busier roads in more populated areas, less-traveled rural roads would either (a) require significantly higher tolls; or (b) receive significantly less funding for maintenance or new construction; or (c) both. Had the highway system been privatized in the Eisenhower era, many roads in middle America never would have been built in the first instance due to economic feasibility. This should be self-evident, really.
And yet there were wagon trails through the most desolate parts of early America.
And....think about how great it will be to have toll roads everywhere! And fees!
Yep. Or perhaps a gas tax to pay for same now that we've given all our tax dollars to corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds
State and Local governments have more than enough, they just need end all the wasteful spending. State and Local government offices tend to have lots of highly-paid people pushing paper and talking all day anyway, they could easily come up with the 80% of the infrastructure cost, while President Trump's infrastructure plan pays the other 20%.
As always, President Trump always comes up with the very best plans on everything. Just look at the big increases in paychecks starting today for a vast majority of workers.
Then I guess if states and local government don't want to improve their infrastructure by joining the private sector or bond issues paid for through increasing taxes they will just have to go without.
State and local governments could transfer funding from intangible things like education to tangible things like infrastructure, if they don't want that 20% carrot from the federal government then other jurisdictions will use the money or it will just save taxpayers money if these states and local governments can't come up with it.
I think the infrastructure plan is the best. Urges government to join with the private sector on replacing the infrastructure, so that way much of the cost will be from private sector and not big government.
Cities and States can just do what they have always done if they want that money bad enough and that is reduce wasteful spending.
And yet there were wagon trails through the most desolate parts of early America.
There sure were. Wagon trails were a great way to cross the Country and were created by private individuals. They left huge swathes of land inaccessible and cost next to nothing to create. If you're suggesting that large parts of the mid-West would have the modern-day equivalent of wagon trails if that type of infrastructure was privatized, I guess you've proved my point for me.
If we privatize (using your example) roads and allow companies to charge a toll, compared to busier roads in more populated areas, less-traveled rural roads would either (a) require significantly higher tolls; or (b) receive significantly less funding for maintenance or new construction; or (c) both. Had the highway system been privatized in the Eisenhower era, many roads in middle America never would have been built in the first instance due to economic feasibility. This should be self-evident, really.
Less traveled roads need less maintenance hence less money. Why would they need more funding?
Charge trucking companies a toll not passenger cars. The semi's cause way more damage.
This is not the 1950's. The interstate has been built. It just needs maintenance now.
Less traveled roads need less maintenance hence less money. Why would they need more funding?
That isn't necessarily true. Roads are damaged far more by weather than they are by vehicular passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
Charge trucking companies a toll not passenger cars. The semi's cause way more damage.
So companies that ship to less-populated areas will have to charge higher prices to the people that live there compared to urban areas. Again, proving my point that people who live in the interior US would suffer economic harm by privatizing infrastructure.
Telling someone else to pay for it isn't much of a plan.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
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.
