The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: gl4317 on 24 Nov 2009 23:01 In article <479e8a62-fb74-40cc-add0-9b41d26e275b(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > 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. There was an effort to have part of Interstate 205 through Portland, Oregon be part of a privately built and operated system. However, the Australian company that was part of the proposal demanded that a number of parallel local roads be closed in order for them to get enough toll revenue. In the end, it was built with tax money. -- -Glennl Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 29 Nov 2009 11:32 jim wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> jim wrote: >>> 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. I think the name you are looking for is "National Highway System", which is the sum of all state highways (which might be signed as interstate, US, or state routes) plus a few surface roads to connect to other modes, e.g. airport access roads. AFAIK, there are no federal highways, unless you want to count the ones in DC as a special case. >> 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. That simply says that the FHWA had previously restrained itself to spending less money than the HTF took in. They could similarly restrain themselves today if desired. A budget deficit is a choice. > 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. You really think a free rural interstate (HTF money) costs as much and gets as much traffic as an urban toll road (no HTF money)? Yes, "free" highways get about half of the VMT despite being a tiny fraction of the total lane-miles. That doesn't change the FACT that taxes on toll or non-highway driving help pay for those "free" highways. >>> 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. More vague claims. > The IRS reports quarterly receipts. Either cite an actual source (including URL or name of print publication) or quit responding. 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 29 Nov 2009 22:00 Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > jim wrote: > > Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> jim wrote: > >>> 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. > > I think the name you are looking for is "National Highway System", which > is the sum of all state highways (which might be signed as interstate, > US, or state routes) plus a few surface roads to connect to other modes, > e.g. airport access roads. OK not Federal highway system but National Highway System. > > AFAIK, there are no federal highways, unless you want to count the ones > in DC as a special case. > > >> 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. > > That simply says that the FHWA had previously restrained itself to > spending less money than the HTF took in. They could similarly restrain > themselves today if desired. > > A budget deficit is a choice. Well yeah of course but.... Every five years or so they pass a highway bill which lays out the expenditures for the next cycle based on anticipated receipts. The current cycle (which ends next year I believe) is the first that had years when the budgeted expenditures exceeded the anticipated revenues. this is because (my newspaper tells) that fuel excise tax collection dropped off in 2008 and 2009 from 2007 levels. As a result this last August and at the same time the previous year the congress passed a bill to bail out the HTF and make up the shortfall. > > > 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. > > You really think a free rural interstate (HTF money) costs as much and > gets as much traffic as an urban toll road (no HTF money)? No but most Interstate roads are heavily traveled. And the rural interstate roads certainly get more traffic than almost all other rural roads. So I think it is a fair statement to say that they are generally the most expensive and most traveled. > > Yes, "free" highways get about half of the VMT despite being a tiny > fraction of the total lane-miles. That doesn't change the FACT that > taxes on toll or non-highway driving help pay for those "free" highways. > > >>> 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. > > More vague claims. > > > The IRS reports quarterly receipts. > > Either cite an actual source (including URL or name of print > publication) or quit responding. Try keeping up with the news and you want need to beg on the internet for information. -jim > > 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: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 2 Dec 2009 22:48 Scott in SoCal wrote: > > [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth > Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] > > But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours > in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Bcause the alternative is a bus. Its stuck in the same bumper-to-bumper traffic. And on the bus, I'd have to sit next to some smelly hobo. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Happily doing the work of 3 Men ... Moe, Larry & Curly
From: Jim Yanik on 3 Dec 2009 08:50
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote in news:4B1734F6.7E8C5192(a)hovnanian.com: > Scott in SoCal wrote: >> >> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth >> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] >> >> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours >> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. because a personal vehicle takes you right to your final destination,where mass transit merely gets you close;you either walk or take a cab for the rest of the trip. And you don't have to wait or walk in the rain,cold,or snow. > > Bcause the alternative is a bus. Its stuck in the same bumper-to-bumper > traffic. And on the bus, I'd have to sit next to some smelly hobo. > Or worse.... and be more vulnerable to robbery or assault,even mass murders. anybody remember the LIRR and Colin Ferguson? Or Bernhard Goetz? at least Goetz was able to defend himself,despite NYC's gun ban. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |