America's Infrastructure

[bmags]

Frankly, despite all the commuting I've done this year, I've been disappointed that I haven't seen more ARRA signs.

 

I-55 is hell. I was stuck in traffic for 40 minutes to go 2 miles in the middle of nowhere

[mr_genius]

I-55 is hell. I was stuck in traffic for 40 minutes to go 2 miles in the middle of nowhere

 

i feel your pain

[Balta1701]

I-55 is hell. I was stuck in traffic for 40 minutes to go 2 miles in the middle of nowhere

Isn't that just a normal summer construction season though?

 

I mean, if you're going to complain about the ARRA funding "Road construction", really, the only solution is "Stop driving".

[Jenksismyhero]

where are you driving on I-55 that's so bad? I commute from La Grange every day and it's rarely more than 35 min to my office in the middle of the loop. Kinda sucks between Harlem and Kedzie, but otherwise it's a breeze.

[Controlled Chaos]

Isn't that just a normal summer construction season though?

 

I mean, if you're going to complain about the ARRA funding "Road construction", really, the only solution is "Stop driving".

 

Why do you need to see the ARRA sign?

[NorthSideSox72]

i directly pay for it with the outrageous taxes I pay, the fees i pay , and when i pay tolls.

That's actually the point I was making. Roads get hundreds of times over the amount of tax dollars that rail does, rail actually generates some revenue on its own while the roads don't... yet, when the very suggestion of putting more money in rail out of the transportation dollars pool comes up, some people's reaction is that we shouldn't be subsidizing rail. Um, your roads are already 100% subsidized, dude.

 

[Balta1701]

Why do you need to see the ARRA sign?

Considering that probably 3/4 of the construction projects I've driven through haven't had one...I want to see how much impact the ARRA is having in spurring new construction. My answer so far has been...not nearly as much as I'd have wanted.

[mr_genius]

rail actually generates some revenue on its own while the roads don't.

 

they actually do. tolls bring in a lot of money as do all the license fees, sticker fees, gas tax, ect.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

they actually do. tolls bring in a lot of money as do all the license fees, sticker fees, gas tax, ect.

 

I don't know what it's like in Chicago but I can tell you driving in and out of NYC is expensive between all the bridges and tunnels. I couldn't tell you how many cars use them every day but it'll cost you anywhere from $5 to $10 to enter the city. Every time.

[Balta1701]

I don't know what it's like in Chicago but I can tell you driving in and out of NYC is expensive between all the bridges and tunnels. I couldn't tell you how many cars use them every day but it'll cost you anywhere from $5 to $10 to enter the city. Every time.

You can cite a few places where the roads have a direct net cost to their use. Can you cite for those of us who want rail development where the free mass transit, similar to all the other roads you can use for free, are?

 

(The only places I can think of I've lived with any sort of free mass transit are the college towns...and usually there the mass transit fee is paid by the university anyway so it's not free to anyone other than the people at the school).

[ChiSox_Sonix]

You can cite a few places where the roads have a direct net cost to their use. Can you cite for those of us who want rail development where the free mass transit, similar to all the other roads you can use for free, are?

 

(The only places I can think of I've lived with any sort of free mass transit are the college towns...and usually there the mass transit fee is paid by the university anyway so it's not free to anyone other than the people at the school).

 

I'm actually all for expanded rail development/mass transit. I was just pointing that out.

[southsider2k5]

You can cite a few places where the roads have a direct net cost to their use. Can you cite for those of us who want rail development where the free mass transit, similar to all the other roads you can use for free, are?

 

(The only places I can think of I've lived with any sort of free mass transit are the college towns...and usually there the mass transit fee is paid by the university anyway so it's not free to anyone other than the people at the school).

 

Unless you are walking or biking, you aren't using roads for free. You are paying taxes on that gasoline that is transporting you around, which is supposed to go directly to fixing those roads. If you are walking or biking, you really aren't hurting the roads anyway.

[Balta1701]

Unless you are walking or biking, you aren't using roads for free. You are paying taxes on that gasoline that is transporting you around, which is supposed to go directly to fixing those roads. If you are walking or biking, you really aren't hurting the roads anyway.

The value of the gasoline tax has declined by about 1/3 over the last 20 years due to not being indexed to inflation, let alone when compared to the increase in gasoline prices.

[Controlled Chaos]

Considering that probably 3/4 of the construction projects I've driven through haven't had one...I want to see how much impact the ARRA is having in spurring new construction. My answer so far has been...not nearly as much as I'd have wanted.

Who cares about the 3/4 of construction projects you drive through?? It's probably not even 1/2 of 1% of the construction going on. There's this thing called the internet. http://www.recovery.org/ Why don't you use that to quell your curiosity instead of promoting the wasteful spending on signs.

 

Just when I thought I found something everyone would agree on....you Baltardize it!!

 

 

[Balta1701]

Who cares about the 3/4 of construction projects you drive through?? It's probably not even 1/2 of 1% of the construction going on. There's this thing called the internet. http://www.recovery.org/ Why don't you use that to quell your curiosity instead of promoting the wasteful spending on signs.

 

Just when I thought I found something everyone would agree on....you Baltardize it!!

My point by noting that is...it has struck me that there's a lot of work going on that hasn't been ARRA work. Which suggests to me that it was possible to shovel more money out through projects than ARRA did, rather than relying as much on tax cuts as it did.

 

If the ARRA hadn't been so overloaded with tax cuts, you ought to see ARRA signs all over the place. People ought to be frustrated because of the huge additional amount of construction on their roads.

[NorthSideSox72]

they actually do. tolls bring in a lot of money as do all the license fees, sticker fees, gas tax, ect.

% of rail lines that generate revenue: near 100%

 

% of roads that have tolls: ??? I'm sure its very small, single digits certainly.

 

I was just pointing out that people seem to be in a bit of a fugue state about road versus rail funding.

 

[southsider2k5]

The value of the gasoline tax has declined by about 1/3 over the last 20 years due to not being indexed to inflation, let alone when compared to the increase in gasoline prices.

 

Which is still hundreds of billions of dollars different than this "free" thing getting bandied about. Without knowing the numbers off of the top of my head I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of roads being paid for is way higher than the percentage of railways being paid for by their respective users. The reality is 180 degrees different from what is being presented here. Yes we need more mass transit, but there is no need to just make up stuff to try to justify it.

[mr_genius]

% of rail lines that generate revenue: near 100%

 

% of roads that have tolls: ??? I'm sure its very small, single digits certainly.

 

I was just pointing out that people seem to be in a bit of a fugue state about road versus rail funding.

 

I am not against public transportation.

anyways

 

Um, your roads are already 100% subsidized, dude.

 

this is just false. you totally ignore gasoline tax and licensing fees. that was my point. everyone else seems to be telling you the same thing.

 

but yes, roads do cost money and requiring additional funding. everyone knows this.

[mr_genius]

Which is still hundreds of billions of dollars different than this "free" thing getting bandied about.

 

shut down the roads. the economy will thrive on horse back.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am not against public transportation.

anyways

 

 

 

this is just false. you totally ignore gasoline tax and licensing fees. that was my point. everyone else seems to be telling you the same thing.

 

but yes, roads do cost money and requiring additional funding. everyone knows this.

How is it false? Subsidized means using tax dollars against cost. That is exactly where 99%+ of the road funding comes from. I suppose I should have said your roads are 99% subsidized, not 100%. SOME of that money comes from TARGETED taxation - gas tax, etc., as you mention. Its still tax money. Except for those very few toll roads in the US, you don't pay for use. Virtually any train ride you take, you pay to ride.

 

I am not against either being true, by the way. Having all roads be pay-for-use is completely impractical. All I'm saying is, people want to know why tax dollars should go to mass transit at all (not you, I was addressing some who truly do say this), and those are the people who don't get it (in my view).

 

The federal and state governments (and localities as well) build and maintain roads, and to an extent rails and other transportation infrastructure. Its accepted by most everyone that this is a function best left to the government to manage. That being the case, it behooves that same government to attempt to allocate transportation infrastructure spending in a way that maximizes efficiency. That doesn't mean everything is on rails - but there have been umpteen studies I've seen that make it clear that a relatively small (compared to the total transportation budget) bump in rail transit funding would pay huge dividends not only for riders, but for drivers and flyers, as well as taxpayers. That function isn't infinite of course, rail has its limits. I'm just saying, there is every reason to believe that the balance of the equation should be a little more towards rail and mass transit than it currently is, if we want the most bang for our taxpayer buck.

 

[mr_genius]

How is it false? Subsidized means using tax dollars against cost. That is exactly where 99%+ of the road funding comes from. I suppose I should have said your roads are 99% subsidized, not 100%. SOME of that money comes from TARGETED taxation - gas tax, etc., as you mention. Its still tax money. Except for those very few toll roads in the US, you don't pay for use. Virtually any train ride you take, you pay to ride.

 

it's taxes directed at driving, which are used to fund roads. drivers pay a lot. your 1% number is not accurate. paying gas tax, paying tolls, and paying for licensing is the same thing as buying a ticket. just in a slightly more abstract sense.

 

and again, no one is saying they pay for 100% of roads/highways.

 

and again, i support a better public transportation system and always have. i support investing WISELY in a better system with tax payer money. you are arguing a point that is not being challenged.

Edited July 16, 2010 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

How is it false? Subsidized means using tax dollars against cost. That is exactly where 99%+ of the road funding comes from. I suppose I should have said your roads are 99% subsidized, not 100%. SOME of that money comes from TARGETED taxation - gas tax, etc., as you mention. Its still tax money. Except for those very few toll roads in the US, you don't pay for use. Virtually any train ride you take, you pay to ride.

 

I am not against either being true, by the way. Having all roads be pay-for-use is completely impractical. All I'm saying is, people want to know why tax dollars should go to mass transit at all (not you, I was addressing some who truly do say this), and those are the people who don't get it (in my view).

 

The federal and state governments (and localities as well) build and maintain roads, and to an extent rails and other transportation infrastructure. Its accepted by most everyone that this is a function best left to the government to manage. That being the case, it behooves that same government to attempt to allocate transportation infrastructure spending in a way that maximizes efficiency. That doesn't mean everything is on rails - but there have been umpteen studies I've seen that make it clear that a relatively small (compared to the total transportation budget) bump in rail transit funding would pay huge dividends not only for riders, but for drivers and flyers, as well as taxpayers. That function isn't infinite of course, rail has its limits. I'm just saying, there is every reason to believe that the balance of the equation should be a little more towards rail and mass transit than it currently is, if we want the most bang for our taxpayer buck.

 

It is also worth mentioning that no where near the cost of the railroads is being paid by tickets to ride them. I know that well over 50% of the money that the passenger railroad based in Michigan City comes from state and federal governments. About a third of their budget comes from tickets being bought.

[NorthSideSox72]

It is also worth mentioning that no where near the cost of the railroads is being paid by tickets to ride them. I know that well over 50% of the money that the passenger railroad based in Michigan City comes from state and federal governments. About a third of their budget comes from tickets being bought.

Oh definitely. Metra is the best peforming agency in the Midwest financially, and even they can just barely break even for normal operations with ticket money. All capital improvements and infrastructure work comes from tax money.

 

[bmags]

shut down the roads. the economy will thrive on horse back.

 

it's not that, it's the attitude that dominates springfield that downstate politicians throw hissy fits that their constituents have to pay for the citys rails, when people in the city also pay for the roads down south that maybe %10 of the amount of people are served than are with urban public transport.

[Jenksismyhero]

it's not that, it's the attitude that dominates springfield that downstate politicians throw hissy fits that their constituents have to pay for the citys rails, when people in the city also pay for the roads down south that maybe %10 of the amount of people are served than are with urban public transport.

 

why isn't that a valid concern? People downstate pay for their roads and the rails up here with their tax dollars, but only use the roads. People here pay the same, but use both. They're paying for something that they never use. I get that you can't have a tax system that covers ONLY what each person uses, but when you add in the corrupt political machine up here, plus the waste of money this city goes through, I can relate to their anger about having to cover those costs.