From: hancock4 on
On Nov 24, 12:41 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote:

> Congress allocated that money as corporate welfare to contractors in
> hopes that they'd use it to create (or at least maintain) highway
> construction jobs.

Jobs creation was a big factor that motivated Eisenhower to approve
the Interstate Highway program. At that time the economy was
softening and a jobs program looked like a great idea.

Be that as it may, what is most curious is that many highway advocates
are also passionate free market advocates who dislike government
involvement in things. One would expect they'd object to a govt jobs
creation program or govt involvement at all. But I don't recall any
efforts to have the private sector itself capitalize, build, own, and
maintain the Interstate system as a private for-profit business.


From: Stephen Sprunk on
hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:41 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Congress allocated that money as corporate welfare to contractors in
>> hopes that they'd use it to create (or at least maintain) highway
>> construction jobs.
>
> Jobs creation was a big factor that motivated Eisenhower to approve
> the Interstate Highway program. At that time the economy was
> softening and a jobs program looked like a great idea.

Gen. Eisenhower saw the Autobahns when he invaded Germany and wanted the
same thing at home, and becoming President was a way to realize that
dream; job creation was just an excuse.

Ironically, one of the main reasons he loved the Autobahns is they made
his invasion _much_ faster/easier. That _should_ have been a reason
_not_ to do the same, lest the Soviets invade us and have the same
benefit. He made the same mistake as Hitler, who envisioned the
Autobahns as making it easier to move war materiel to the front but
quickly discovered that he couldn't build new ones anywhere near as fast
as his armies could conquer new territory... Even at the end of the
war, they barely stretched past Germany's original borders.

> Be that as it may, what is most curious is that many highway advocates
> are also passionate free market advocates who dislike government
> involvement in things. One would expect they'd object to a govt jobs
> creation program or govt involvement at all.

Many of them did object to the stimulus package, at least. For the rest
of the government involvement, they discard their ideology and hide
behind the false "user fees pay for everything" rhetoric as justification.

> But I don't recall any efforts to have the private sector itself
> capitalize, build, own, and maintain the Interstate system as a private
> for-profit business.

California tried private construction, ownership, maintenance, and
operation of one tollway (CA-91 express lanes); after seven years, OCTA
bought out the company and operates it to this day.

Texas has successfully contracted out maintenance of some sections of
Interstate and state highways. They are in much better shape than the
publicly maintained ones, but there is no data published on the relative
costs to TxDOT.

Many states have contracted (or attempted to contract) out operation of
tollways to private businesses. There's a Spanish company that seems
particularly effective at lobbying state legislatures to mandate it--and
getting public agencies barred from bidding against them.

AFAIK, all states contract out heavy construction to private businesses.
Light construction and repair might be contracted out or done in-house,
depending on various factors.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: jim on


Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >>>> Luckily, the FHWA has collected all the figures and done all the math
> >>>> for us, though it's such a gigantic pain that they don't do it every
> >>>> year. 2004 figures:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf1.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> 21% of total road spending in the US comes from property taxes and other
> >>>> general funds, 11% from bonds, 6% from "other imposts", and 5% from
> >>>> "miscellaneous receipts" (including interest). Only 57% comes from fuel
> >>>> excise taxes and tolls, which is far lower than Big Oil and their
> >>>> advocates such as the Reason Foundation will admit to.
> >>>
> >>> Well things are different today. Fuel consumption has been dropping for
> >>> last 2 years and road construction costs have taken a sharp upturn in
> >>> the same period.
> >>
> >> If you have similarly detailed data from a more recent year, I'll be
> >> happy to look at it, but for now that's the only comprehensive data on
> >> the record I'm aware of.
> >>
> >> Unless you have specific numbers for the increase in construction
> >> expenditures and the decrease in fuel taxes, they're just vague "trends"
> >> that aren't particularly informative.
> >
> > You might read a newspaper inform yourself of what is going on in
> > Washington, Look at the budget. Congress has appropriated an additional
> > 60 billion to shore up the Hiway trust fund in 2008-2009.
>
> Congress allocated that money as corporate welfare to contractors in
> hopes that they'd use it to create (or at least maintain) highway
> construction jobs.

Yes much of the extra is stimulus money. But the last 2 years in
addition to the stimulus funding Congress also had to pass bills to put
money into The HTF to keep it solvent. That had never happened before.

>
> > That is the first time in 50 years the trust fund has failed to meet the
> > cost of maintaining the federal hiway system,
>
> Definitely false. There is no _federal_ highway system, and the federal
> HTF has _never_ paid the full cost of maintaining the _state_ highway
> systems.

Well yes there is a federal highway system. It is the interstate system
and a few other roads that for some reason aren't classified as part of
the interstate system. Its official name is something like federal
interstate and defense highways.

> States have to chip in 10%, 20%, or more of the cost of
> projects from their own tax revenues, plus projects have been routinely
> denied or delayed several years until funds can be found. I've looked
> at the last decade of TIPs for my area and have found _dozens_ of
> highway projects that got no federal funding at all, in addition to the
> many toll roads all over the country that are by law not eligible for
> HTF money--despite their users still have to pay fuel excise taxes in
> addition to tolls.

There was always advanced planning as to what would be funded when it
would be funded and on what basis. Up until a few years ago revenues
have always exceeded the planned expenditures. And yes the HTF does not
pay for all roads or even close to it. In terms of miles of road built
and maintained it probably has paid for less than 4% of the total. But
they are generally the most expensive and most traveled roads.

>
> > 4 years ago it was running a surplus of 20 billion. And the reason the
> > trust fund is broke? Is what I said:
> >
> > Fuel consumption has been dropping for last 2 years
> > and road construction costs have taken a sharp
> > upturn in the same period.
>
> You're still making vague claims. Where are your statistics to support
> them? I provided the stats that _I_ am using.

The HTF fell considerably short of the previous year's revenues for
2008 largely due to decreased volume of fuel sold. 2009 looks to be more
or less the same as last. The IRS reports quarterly receipts.

-jim
From: Bernd Felsche on
Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote:
>hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 12:41 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote:

>>> Congress allocated that money as corporate welfare to
>>> contractors in hopes that they'd use it to create (or at least
>>> maintain) highway construction jobs.

>> Jobs creation was a big factor that motivated Eisenhower to approve
>> the Interstate Highway program. At that time the economy was
>> softening and a jobs program looked like a great idea.

>Gen. Eisenhower saw the Autobahns when he invaded Germany and
>wanted the same thing at home, and becoming President was a way to
>realize that dream; job creation was just an excuse.

>Ironically, one of the main reasons he loved the Autobahns is they
>made his invasion _much_ faster/easier. That _should_ have been a
>reason _not_ to do the same, lest the Soviets invade us and have
>the same benefit. He made the same mistake as Hitler, who
>envisioned the Autobahns as making it easier to move war materiel
>to the front but quickly discovered that he couldn't build new ones
>anywhere near as fast as his armies could conquer new territory...
>Even at the end of the war, they barely stretched past Germany's
>original borders.

That was at least in part due to the railway lobby, infiltrating
into party level. The r�gime was corrupt and rotten to the core.

Such was reported by General Walter Dornberger in his book on V2
development. The most hare-brained ideas conceived "by the
leadership" were pursued with utmost, wasteful vigour. This left few
resources for what really had to be done.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: Brent on
On 2009-11-24, Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote:

>>Ironically, one of the main reasons he loved the Autobahns is they
>>made his invasion _much_ faster/easier. That _should_ have been a
>>reason _not_ to do the same, lest the Soviets invade us and have
>>the same benefit.

No, it was to move troops and material to where they were needed from
where they were. Early in Ike's military career he was part of some
cross country trip and it went miserably as I recall.

>> He made the same mistake as Hitler, who
>>envisioned the Autobahns as making it easier to move war materiel
>>to the front but quickly discovered that he couldn't build new ones
>>anywhere near as fast as his armies could conquer new territory...
>>Even at the end of the war, they barely stretched past Germany's
>>original borders.

The US didn't invade anyone it shared a border with in the second half
of the 20th century.

> Such was reported by General Walter Dornberger in his book on V2
> development. The most hare-brained ideas conceived "by the
> leadership" were pursued with utmost, wasteful vigour. This left few
> resources for what really had to be done.

Centralized government tends to do that.