So finally, I hear on both CSPAN and FOX, Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi are to meet in the White House with POTUS on an Infrastructure spending program this week. Though I also heard Sen Mitchell says nothing doing until after 2020. We'll see what happens.
Another hopeful sign is Trump starting to leak aspects of what he wants in a speech in Green Bay, WI today........so maybe he is finally on board with moving forwards as well?
I am hopeful because we desperately need one for all modes (air, highway and rail). Also a cliff hanger on what they plan to do for Amtrak if anything.
CMStPnPI am hopeful because we desperately need one [infrastructure spending program] for all modes (air, highway and rail).
How do you know that?
Euclid CMStPnP I am hopeful because we desperately need one [infrastructure spending program] for all modes (air, highway and rail). How do you know that?
CMStPnP I am hopeful because we desperately need one [infrastructure spending program] for all modes (air, highway and rail).
EuclidHow do you know that?
I travel around the country a lot. KC Airport is crap, roads in Wisconsin though better than before are still fairly bad in places. Most of METRA's 400 railroad bridges are overdue for replacement, etc, etc.
I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a Federal infrastructure program of any size. Blondie has a notoriously short attention span and is easily distracted. I also doubt that his brain is properly engaged when he starts flapping his tongue.
CSSHEGEWISCH I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a Federal infrastructure program of any size. Blondie has a notoriously short attention span and is easily distracted. I also doubt that his brain is properly engaged when he starts flapping his tongue.
He is also a builder and loves to build big things. So he just adores the idea of rebuilding our entire infrastructure. That was his signature ambition even before he became president. The other party loves infrastructure because it is all public sector, and they love the power of massive public spending and growing their government. So they go around chanting the mantra of “The need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”
The citizens ought to ask how we suddenly arrived at the breaking point where our national infrastructure is all falling down and urgently requires a national campaign of colossal spending to put it all back together. Did we just now discover that things need maintenance?
This is not what it is being made to appear. The potholes are essential tools of this expansion because they irritate drivers and get them to favor massive spending. That is why potholes never get fixed. They are cash cows.
So if this “National Infrastructure Program” takes root, it will be the first thing that both parties agree on. The Public will also be onboard because they hate bumps in the road. With all those stars aligned, this will be a public sector feeding frenzy the likes of which we have never seen.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a Federal infrastructure program of any size. Blondie has a notoriously short attention span and is easily distracted. I also doubt that his brain is properly engaged when he starts flapping his tongue. He is also a builder and loves to build big things. So he just adores the idea of rebuilding our entire infrastructure. That was his signature ambition even before he became president. The other party loves infrastructure because it is all public sector, and they love the power of massive public spending and growing their government. So they go around chanting the mantra of “The need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.” The citizens ought to ask how we suddenly arrived at the breaking point where our national infrastructure is all falling down and urgently requires a national campaign of colossal spending to put it all back together. Did we just now discover that things need maintenance? This is not what it is being made to appear. The potholes are essential tools of this expansion because they irritate drivers and get them to favor massive spending. That is why potholes never get fixed. They are cash cows. So if this “National Infrastructure Program” takes root, it will be the first thing that both parties agree on. The Public will also be onboard because they hate bumps in the road. With all those stars aligned, this will be a public sector feeding frenzy the likes of which we have never seen.
Builders - don't rebuild. Once it is build they have lost interest in the project. The last thing a 'builder' wants to do is to maintain something that already exists - you can't attach your name to an existing structure.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I've mentioned this before. Several years back I watched a news program on crumbling infrastructure, PBS, CNN, FOX, I don't remember which. Anyway, a highway engineer was one of the featured interviewees and he said something I haven't forgotten.
The man stated that there was PLENTY of money to maintain the infrastructure we had, and there always was. The problem was the damn politicians, federal, state, local, take your pick, who kept diverting said money from infrastructure maintanance projects to "sexier" projects like buildings of various types they could put their names on. Stadiums, office buildings, parks, whatever.
Nothing sexy about road repaving, bridge repainting, traffic lights, or overpasses.
Personally I don't think you should put anyone's name on anything unless they're dead, but that's another matter.
Was the man right? Probably. Quite honestly I don't think anyone goes into politics unless they have some kind of an ego, some more than others.
Dwight Eisenhower was being honest when he said "I never would have gotten as far as I did if I hadn't learned to hide my ego!"
Flintlock76 I've mentioned this before. Several years back I watched a news program on crumbling infrastructure, PBS, CNN, FOX, I don't remember which. Anyway, a highway engineer was one of the featured interviewees and he said something I haven't forgotten. The man stated that there was PLENTY of money to maintain the infrastructure we had, and there always was. The problem was the damn politicians, federal, state, local, take your pick, who kept diverting said money from infrastructure maintanance projects to "sexier" projects like buildings of various types they could put their names on. Stadiums, office buildings, parks, whatever.
That is exactly right.
EuclidThe citizens ought to ask how we suddenly arrived at the breaking point where our national infrastructure is all falling down and urgently requires a national campaign of colossal spending to put it all back together. Did we just now discover that things need maintenance?
More than a hundred years of crumbling infrastructure, since just a few years after the practical introduction of widespread Good Roads activities.
The fundamental issue was, and I think still is, that 'roads are supposed to be free'. Regardless of whether corrosive chemicals are dumped on them in wintertime; or they were built with materials that degraded unexpectedly ... or naturally ... over time; or larger and larger trucks pound them into early submission and defeat.
We had a very nice elevated cars-only road all the way around lower Manhattan, clear of all the dock and local traffic. The then-idiot city management salted it regularly without regard to subsequent inspection and maintenance, then took to running loaded garbage trucks on it until, surprise surprise! one started to fall through. Then they expensively cut it down, claiming they were going to replace it with something out in the river, and eventually wound up even more expensively replacing it with ... a glorified street with lots of stoplights. At least it's still free.
The basic problem is rather similar to the situation with the poor liner United States. Lots of money -- and I mean lots of money by most historic-preservation standards -- was spent to give the poor girl a home. All of it went fast, with the hands and mouths eagerly outstretched for more afterward. But now all the glory is gone, only the need to pay and pay, and when you get something 'free' it's unpleasant to have to start finding victims, or saps, or whatever, who can be made to pay for free. Especially if collectively they can vote your bum tail out and get someone who'll soak a different demographic or whatever. (Or better still, get free money from 'the government' to help something something something...)
The Eisenhower Interstate legislation was enacted in 1956 - the design criteria of the Interstate System was a life span of 50 years - we are now approaching 60 years of service on many things that were only constructed to have a life of 50 years.
As has been stated - maintaining existing infrastructure is not sexy from a political point of view. Better to build 'something, anything NEW' that some politician can have his name associated with - from the politician's point of re-election view.
BaltACD As has been stated - maintaining existing infrastructure is not sexy from a political point of view. Better to build 'something, anything NEW' that some politician can have his name associated with - from the politician's point of re-election view.
Michigan may rebuild its crumbling infrastructure by increasing the gas tax from 26 cents per gal. to 71 cents per gal. if the governor has her way. Do you believe that the $2-billion per year raised by this tax increase will fix the crumbling infrastructure?
Will they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/05/terrible-idea-michigans-democratic-governor-pushes-an-enormous-gas-tax-increase/
Careful what you wish for. The proposed infrastructure programs favor OTR trucking and provide nominal grants - really insignificant - for freight rail projects. As is often discussed on the General Discussion posts and Fred Frailey’s posts, trucking does not pay for nearly its cost impacts on infrastructure, either in first-in costs (design and construction) or maintenance costs. The true costs of OTR trucking are hidden: this effectively has a lowering impact on trucking rates, and puts freight rail in a less competitive position. This is no slight against trucking: we need trucks, and we could survive a lot better without railroads than we could without trucks. Our nation’s infrastructure is indeed crumbling (in large part due to heavier trucks…) and rebuilding it is essential. But something has to be done to minimize the imbalanced in freight transportation policies relative to infrastructure financing.
My solution (that along with $4 will get you a Frappuccino at Starbucks) is to give freight railroading a 100% tax credit on all infrastructure investment. This would cover everything from land purchases for new yards (ie: new intermodal ramps, transload centers, carload yards, etc) as well as land necessary to re-align 19th Century ROWs into much more modern thoroughfares; construction costs on those plus added main track, sidings, new bridges, tunnels, and signal system renovations, etc.
You will never get this nation to have transparent user-pays taxation. But what you can do to at least balance things somewhat is to use tax credits to reward investments. Infrastructure is one of many solid ways to do that.
About seventeen years ago, the Interstate system around Salt Lake CIty was rebuilt in preparation for the Olympics. Many severe potholes have called for quick repair this past winter.
Indeed, proper street maintenance has been deferred recently so that money could be spent on a bicycle trail around the area.
Johnny
There it is Johnny. What good is a gas tax or any other kind of tax to provide funds for road repair if the money gets frittered away on "feel-good" projects?
And Euclid, the politicians will NEVER roll back a gas tax. They're just as addicted to other people's money as a junkie is to heroin.
Wayne
EuclidWill they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax?
That is as dumb as asking "will they tell us when they finish painting the Golden Gate bridge, and then roll back the tax that paid for it".
Did you think there was some magic point all the "old" crumbling infrastructure would be replaced with shining, perfect, modern projects that would never age? Everything crumbles, eventually. Probably the best you can do is stay ahead of the most serious ... but then you get into the problem when the squeakiest wheels set a priority that isn't true triage...
Overmod Euclid Will they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax? That is as dumb as asking "will they tell us when they finish painting the Golden Gate bridge, and then roll back the tax that paid for it". Did you think there was some magic point all the "old" crumbling infrastructure would be replaced with shining, perfect, modern projects that would never age? Everything crumbles, eventually. Probably the best you can do is stay ahead of the most serious ... but then you get into the problem when the squeakiest wheels set a priority that isn't true triage...
Euclid Will they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax?
Well of course I was being sarcastic when I asked the question. I am surprised you failed to realise that. But further to your point: The Michigan gas tax increase is said to produce $2-billion per year for fixing the broken infrastructure. They don't say that it is a permanent tax to maintain infrastructure. If it is, do you think that maintaining the infrustructure will cost $2-billion per year?
Why on earth would you believe that I think that infrustructure never ages? My point it that it should be maintained and the maintenance should be funded. Or is it better to just build it and let it last as long as possible until it "crumbles" and then tear it out and build it again? That would be the process that this nonsense "We must rebuild our crumbling infrastrure" is attached to. That process would be criminal on several levels.
Everything does crumble eventually, but for infrastructure in use, the smartest and only responsible thing to do is maintain it at on an ongoing basis. If they just let it crumble, the only reason is to con the taxpayer into giving them more money to spend on whatever they fancy.
EuclidWell of course I was being sarcastic when I asked the question. I am surprised you failed to realise that.
Sorry. It was a WHOOOOOOSH of grand proportions, then. I apologize.
Overmod Euclid Well of course I was being sarcastic when I asked the question. I am surprised you failed to realise that. Sorry. It was a WHOOOOOOSH of grand proportions, then. I apologize.
Euclid Well of course I was being sarcastic when I asked the question. I am surprised you failed to realise that.
Oh, no problem. Thanks for your apology.
Euclid Michigan may rebuild its crumbling infrastructure by increasing the gas tax from 26 cents per gal. to 71 cents per gal. if the governor has her way. Do you believe that the $2-billion per year raised by this tax increase will fix the crumbling infrastructure? Will they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax?
I live in Michigan, and yes the roads are crumbling. They did not all of a sudden crumble; they crumbled over many years of failure to raise the gas tax to keep up with inflation, so road maintenance was deferred. As the roads further crumbled, funds were diverted from education and other state services to avoid raising the gas tax, and to pay for business tax cuts. The legislature did not want to be the ones to raise the gas tax, so they put it to the voters. However, the politicians put other goodies into the proposal, and the voters did not swallow it. So the new govenor proposed a really big gas tax increase, however, she seemed to telegraph that it was just a starting point in negotiations. It still has to be big enough because of the backlog of needed repairs. Michigan load limits are double the national limit, but those trucks must have 11 axles vs the normal 5 axles, so the per-axle load is a little less. Nevertheless, bridges take the full double hammering. I don't know that the gas tax would be lowered if they catch up on repairs, but I expect by that time inflation might have caught back up to it.
MidlandMike Euclid Michigan may rebuild its crumbling infrastructure by increasing the gas tax from 26 cents per gal. to 71 cents per gal. if the governor has her way. Do you believe that the $2-billion per year raised by this tax increase will fix the crumbling infrastructure? Will they tell us when all of the crumbling infrastructure has been fixed and then roll back the gas tax? I live in Michigan, and yes the roads are crumbling. They did not all of a sudden crumble; they crumbled over many years of failure to raise the gas tax to keep up with inflation, so road maintenance was deferred. As the roads further crumbled, funds were diverted from education and other state services to avoid raising the gas tax, and to pay for business tax cuts. The legislature did not want to be the ones to raise the gas tax, so they put it to the voters. However, the politicians put other goodies into the proposal, and the voters did not swallow it. So the new govenor proposed a really big gas tax increase, however, she seemed to telegraph that it was just a starting point in negotiations. It still has to be big enough because of the backlog of needed repairs. Michigan load limits are double the national limit, but those trucks must have 11 axles vs the normal 5 axles, so the per-axle load is a little less. Nevertheless, bridges take the full double hammering. I don't know that the gas tax would be lowered if they catch up on repairs, but I expect by that time inflation might have caught back up to it.
I did a little bit of driving in Michigan in the early 80's - Walbridge Yard in Toledo to the Detroit airport - the roads involved were 'crumbling' then. Michigan Winters and Summers wreak havoc on highways and highway structures.
I live in Michigan too, and am familar with the world's worst roads. But I only use the Governor's proposed massive tax increase as an examlpe of a crash course in "Fixing our crumbling infrastructure." Has the road maintenance not kept up because the gas tax was too low? Or has it not kept up because they spend the money on other things?
Or have the roads and bridges cumbled because of the State having truck load limits double the national average?
Or did they intentionally use crumbling roads and bridges as leverage to really sock it to the taxpayer for a revenue bonanza to further use for other, more fun things needed for the empire?
In any case, this is an eye-popping tax increase in one state that can be used as a scale model to show what will happen if we do this nationwide at the Federal level with all political factions suddenly on the same side for the first time. Once that train leaves the station, there will be no stopping the soaring costs. Big projects are more suseptible to cost overrun because too much has been invested to stop now. So we do this as a national campaign, and potholes will be the least of our problems.
Look at it this way. If tax revenues go into a "General Fund," for lack of a better term, instead of being specified BY LAW as to where they're going to be applied, they're too much of a temptation for those in power to "rob" or divert to other pet projects.
One of the reasons for the success of wildlife conservation projects paid for by hunting and fishing licenses around the country is those monies (in most states) are protected by the legislation that created hunting and fishing licences to begin with and can't be used for any other purposes.
In the Home Owners Association where I live in a townhouse, there are reserve studies done every five years to review the condition of our buildings and it deternines the needs for funds to maintain the property. Things like replace the roofs. They are now using the funds in our reserves one the second group of buildings that are 21 years old. This in my case means that next year, my home will get a new roof that I have been prepaying for over the last twenty years. This I like because the alternative would be a large one time assesment that for many can "break the bank" I just needed to replace my furnace and AC which set me back about 7K. That came out of my own reserve fund. Unlike too many, I am fortunate and was able to and chose to not spend every dime I earned so I can afford things like this. Our state (Illinois) however has chosen to spend every dime it had and not fund its pension plans and nor have any reserves. The pension plans seem to have also been awarded to people based on what thay made in their last years and not based on what the accrued over the years of employment. Some got put in for one day of work and then get thousands of dolars per year for the rest of their life. This is crazy. But it is our politicians who got elected. I will not rant much more.
I have always liked a commercial that I used to hear back in the sixties from a Savings and Loan named Talman Federal that advertised the "BOHEMIAN PAYMENT PLAN". It was save your money, then pay 100% down and NO easy payments. Words to live by.
Deleted political talk
EuclidHas the road maintenance not kept up because the gas tax was too low? Or has it not kept up because they spend the money on other things?
The gas tax was adaquate to begin with, but it was not raised periodically to keep up with inflation. Rather than the gas tax being spent on other things, money started to be pulled out of the state's general fund to be spent on the roads.
I know that the Michigan trucking industry keeps saying that the 160K# trucks don't harm the roads because of the increased axle count, but I don't believe it. You just have to compare Michigan roads with neighboring Ohio. Back in the old days, their excuse was that all of Michigan's industry could compete better because the larger trucks could deliver more products to the factories. Well, Michigan isn't the Arsenal of Democracy anymore and states with 80K# trucks are doing fine with new industry.
Considering it's been 26 years since a fuel tax increase has been passed at the Federal level and also in that same bill parts of the fuel taxes were diverted to non road uses things like bike paths and transit uses it's easy to see why the roads aren't in that great of shape anymore. They actually have figured out that by the time everyone involved in highway study and such takes thejt share our of a dollar of fuel taxes less than 20 vents is actually spent on the roads to keep them repaired.
Backshop I know that the Michigan trucking industry keeps saying that the 160K# trucks don't harm the roads because of the increased axle count, but I don't believe it. You just have to compare Michigan roads with neighboring Ohio. Back in the old days, their excuse was that all of Michigan's industry could compete better because the larger trucks could deliver more products to the factories. Well, Michigan isn't the Arsenal of Democracy anymore and states with 80K# trucks are doing fine with new industry.
Reportedly only a small percentage of Mich. trucks are the 160k 11 axle type. mostly I see bulk trucks, mostly petroleum tankers. They were a replacement for double gas tankers, that had a number of firey accidents in the 70s. Roads that never see that truck traffic still look bad. Another problem is all the salt they use on the roads with all the lake effect snow. Salt attacks bridges, culverts, concrete re-rod, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.