NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) Not sure what I think of the tax, but I would absolutely abolish the department of transportation and most of the "chicago traffic authority." Create a small office for full, state-wide and state-to-state transit (i'd even possibly accept regional boards to coordinate services), but privatize the rest -- road building, repair, maintenance, etc. Think of the hundreds of millions we'd save. Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Illinois one of the states where the "gas tax" can be used for other things besides transit? Maybe I'm wrong and thinking of something different. Abolish what department of transportation? Federal? State? And what you described creating IS the department of transportation. What makes you think we could save hundreds of millions that way, in either case? I mean, if we don't maintain the roads, then yeah, we save that money. And lose it elsewhere. Not sure about the IL gas tax usage, but it wouldn't surprise me if it went into the general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) People driving, and paying gasoline taxes to do it, is supposed to be paying for roads. Without violating even more rights than the government already does, there isn't a simpler way to do it. Its not like you can put a toll booth on the end of every driveway. If we could keep track of mileage and tax usage that way as to pay for road usage without the government tracking people's personal movements that would be ideal. Then again, I am sure the money for roads would just be cannibalized like it ended up being now. If you are going to fully segregate mass/public transit from driving, then I suppose you need to price in all the externalities from driving too. Driving would suddenly get much more expensive. Tracking mileage has an appeal, but it sure does feel intrusive to me. Probably too much so. Tell you what. Lets raise the gas tax so that it is at the level necessary to actually fund road maintenance where it needs to be, add more to it for the pollution and externalities associated with it (of which there are many), and then see how people feel about mass transit when gas is $7 a gallon. Driving is already subsidized far more so than transit. And worse, we aren't even maintaining the roads and bridges we already have in a reasonable way - there are all kinds of safety and efficiency issues not being addressed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Abolish what department of transportation? Federal? State? And what you described creating IS the department of transportation. What makes you think we could save hundreds of millions that way, in either case? I mean, if we don't maintain the roads, then yeah, we save that money. And lose it elsewhere. Not sure about the IL gas tax usage, but it wouldn't surprise me if it went into the general fund. Sorry, the IL dept of transportation. And no, i'm describing a small department of coordinators, not a full on workforce in a variety of areas. I'd privatize everything, from toll booth collection to road work. I'm not saying make it a for-profit business model, i'm just saying get it out of the "public" hands where waste is rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) If you are going to fully segregate mass/public transit from driving, then I suppose you need to price in all the externalities from driving too. Driving would suddenly get much more expensive. Tracking mileage has an appeal, but it sure does feel intrusive to me. Probably too much so. Tell you what. Lets raise the gas tax so that it is at the level necessary to actually fund road maintenance where it needs to be, add more to it for the pollution and externalities associated with it (of which there are many), and then see how people feel about mass transit when gas is $7 a gallon. Driving is already subsidized far more so than transit. And worse, we aren't even maintaining the roads and bridges we already have in a reasonable way - there are all kinds of safety and efficiency issues not being addressed there. It seems to me that Exxon-Mobil is making record profits by selling automotive gasoline that would be a lot less in demand without the roads on which to drive the vehicles it fuels. Why don't they have to subsidize infrastructure? AT&T, Verizon, Sprint pay for their infrastructure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:12 PM) It seems to me that Exxon-Mobil is making record profits by selling automotive gasoline that would be a lot less in demand without the roads on which to drive the vehicles it fuels. Why don't they have to subsidize infrastructure? AT&T, Verizon, Sprint pay for their infrastructure... Actually telecommunications is subsidized in many ways such as land access to build out infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) Sorry, the IL dept of transportation. And no, i'm describing a small department of coordinators, not a full on workforce in a variety of areas. I'd privatize everything, from toll booth collection to road work. I'm not saying make it a for-profit business model, i'm just saying get it out of the "public" hands where waste is rampant.i How does this save hundreds of millions, though? what impact have other infrastructure privatization models had on service, quality, availability and actual public costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) Actually telecommunications is subsidized in many ways such as land access to build out infrastructure. Yeah, but they still pay for the majority of their infrastructure themselves, do they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Yeah, but they still pay for the majority of their No idea infrastructure themselves, do they not? No idea, honestly. But virtually every business benefits from infrastructure subsidization, whether it is roads or mass transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:20 PM) How does this save hundreds of millions, though? what impact have other infrastructure privatization models had on service, quality, availability and actual public costs? Common sense really. Think of every downstate project. You could hire local businesses instead of shipping in regional IDOT workers to do the work. But i'm also thinking you could easily set up a system like Medicare - hey construction/engineering/whatever company, you want a piece of this project? Here's the bottom line price we're paying. Bidding ensues and efficiency increases. Just this morning I was laughing about the waste of the Chicago Traffic Authority (beyond the typical waste of traffic controllers repeating what automated lights already do). I saw 8 trucks full of salt on one stretch of Clark Street (south of Congress). There was no snow. There was no ice. There was no cold weather that could potentially turn into ice. They were just out driving around. Waste. On my walk to work (I get dropped off down there and walk to my office in the southwest loop) I saw 4 IDOT trucks with guys sitting in them, just waiting. One guy was outside picking stuff up, the rest were drinking their dunkin donuts and reading the paper. Obviously that's probably not normal, but I do think efficiency would go up if companies were forced to submit itemized bills that have to be reviewed before they get paid versus IDOT just paying it out as the normal cost of business. See also: FedEx and UPS versus the USPS. Edited February 22, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 USPS is also like half the cost to ship most of the time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:40 PM) USPS is also like half the cost to ship most of the time.... After you add in the yearly losses of billions though? Edited February 22, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) Sorry, the IL dept of transportation. And no, i'm describing a small department of coordinators, not a full on workforce in a variety of areas. I'd privatize everything, from toll booth collection to road work. I'm not saying make it a for-profit business model, i'm just saying get it out of the "public" hands where waste is rampant. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) Common sense really. Think of every downstate project. You could hire local businesses instead of shipping in regional IDOT workers to do the work. But i'm also thinking you could easily set up a system like Medicare - hey construction/engineering/whatever company, you want a piece of this project? Here's the bottom line price we're paying. Bidding ensues and efficiency increases. Just this morning I was laughing about the waste of the Chicago Traffic Authority (beyond the typical waste of traffic controllers repeating what automated lights already do). I saw 8 trucks full of salt on one stretch of Clark Street (south of Congress). There was no snow. There was no ice. There was no cold weather that could potentially turn into ice. They were just out driving around. Waste. On my walk to work (I get dropped off down there and walk to my office in the southwest loop) I saw 4 IDOT trucks with guys sitting in them, just waiting. One guy was outside picking stuff up, the rest were drinking their dunkin donuts and reading the paper. Obviously that's probably not normal, but I do think efficiency would go up if companies were forced to submit itemized bills that have to be reviewed before they get paid versus IDOT just paying it out as the normal cost of business. See also: FedEx and UPS versus the USPS. I am not opposed to your ideas here. But... first of all, they already do that for road projects. IDOT does only a small percentage of the actual construction work. Second, hundreds of millions? Really? You aren't cutting services, you are privatizing. Private firms still need to get paid, and probably want a little profit. That little profit is probably equal to the waste. I would rather they bring in a private firm to find the inefficiencies as they stand, issue a public report, and force Springfield to make those changes necessary to cut waste. You can probably save millions a year, but hundreds of millions? No way. Also, what do you want to do about snow and ice? They only send out trucks when the weather is bad or is going to get bad. Not sure what else you expect. I am sure there is some waste there, but some of it is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) After you add in the yearly losses of billions though? I've said before, USPS should charge rates that cover their costs. But, keep in mind, a big part of their losses right now are attributed to the bizarre requirement in law for them to fund out their health care and retirement benefits for 75 freakin years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) Common sense really. Think of every downstate project. You could hire local businesses instead of shipping in regional IDOT workers to do the work. But i'm also thinking you could easily set up a system like Medicare - hey construction/engineering/whatever company, you want a piece of this project? Here's the bottom line price we're paying. Bidding ensues and efficiency increases. Just this morning I was laughing about the waste of the Chicago Traffic Authority (beyond the typical waste of traffic controllers repeating what automated lights already do). I saw 8 trucks full of salt on one stretch of Clark Street (south of Congress). There was no snow. There was no ice. There was no cold weather that could potentially turn into ice. They were just out driving around. Waste. On my walk to work (I get dropped off down there and walk to my office in the southwest loop) I saw 4 IDOT trucks with guys sitting in them, just waiting. One guy was outside picking stuff up, the rest were drinking their dunkin donuts and reading the paper. Obviously that's probably not normal, but I do think efficiency would go up if companies were forced to submit itemized bills that have to be reviewed before they get paid versus IDOT just paying it out as the normal cost of business. See also: FedEx and UPS versus the USPS. But there can be just as many if not more inefficiencies in the private sector. It's not like privatization is a magic pill to remove waste and corruption. Idot already bids out projects to contractors. At least in my industry, the bidding for government utilities is a lot more budget-focused than the private utilities, and some of these plants just hemorrhage money. And again, it is about performing a public service versus generating private profits. The usps does things for rural citizens that a private carrier just doesn't do. The same holds true for infrastructure, at least for some services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) I am not opposed to your ideas here. But... first of all, they already do that for road projects. IDOT does only a small percentage of the actual construction work. Second, hundreds of millions? Really? You aren't cutting services, you are privatizing. Private firms still need to get paid, and probably want a little profit. That little profit is probably equal to the waste. I would rather they bring in a private firm to find the inefficiencies as they stand, issue a public report, and force Springfield to make those changes necessary to cut waste. You can probably save millions a year, but hundreds of millions? No way. Also, what do you want to do about snow and ice? They only send out trucks when the weather is bad or is going to get bad. Not sure what else you expect. I am sure there is some waste there, but some of it is necessary. They do that for SOME projects. Yes, they hire out, but even for random crews that are just filling potholes they use IDOT workers. And I wasn't suggesting hundreds of millions PER YEAR. I meant over time. Perhaps we could be saving a jail or medical center or two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) They do that for SOME projects. Yes, they hire out, but even for random crews that are just filling potholes they use IDOT workers. And I wasn't suggesting hundreds of millions PER YEAR. I meant over time. Perhaps we could be saving a jail or medical center or two! I can't seem to find any data on how much idit contracts out versus self-performing. I did skim through several studies on privatization, though. The general takeaway is that, yes, efficiency is improved, but at least in the short term, these gains are captured by shareholders. This ends up being a net transfer of wealth upwards. The urban poor sees higher access, but the rural poor loses out. Note that this is infrastructure privatization in general and not specifically transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) They do that for SOME projects. Yes, they hire out, but even for random crews that are just filling potholes they use IDOT workers. And I wasn't suggesting hundreds of millions PER YEAR. I meant over time. Perhaps we could be saving a jail or medical center or two! I'm fine with doing more of that. Let IDOT manage things, so that the state itself has a solid stake in the outcomes, but have much more of the services on the ground done by private firms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Would probably see a significant savings by keeping the gas tax here instead of sending it to Washington first, where they put all sorts of strings on it in order to get it back. More hands touching it, more opportunities for waste and fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) If you are going to fully segregate mass/public transit from driving, then I suppose you need to price in all the externalities from driving too. Driving would suddenly get much more expensive. Tracking mileage has an appeal, but it sure does feel intrusive to me. Probably too much so. Tell you what. Lets raise the gas tax so that it is at the level necessary to actually fund road maintenance where it needs to be, add more to it for the pollution and externalities associated with it (of which there are many), and then see how people feel about mass transit when gas is $7 a gallon. Driving is already subsidized far more so than transit. And worse, we aren't even maintaining the roads and bridges we already have in a reasonable way - there are all kinds of safety and efficiency issues not being addressed there. How do you think people would feel about mass transit if it were to cost the 2 or 3 times as much for a commute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:12 PM) It seems to me that Exxon-Mobil is making record profits by selling automotive gasoline that would be a lot less in demand without the roads on which to drive the vehicles it fuels. Why don't they have to subsidize infrastructure? AT&T, Verizon, Sprint pay for their infrastructure... False. They do pay for infrastructure in the way that the internet companies do. They fund and build the delivery systems for their products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) I've said before, USPS should charge rates that cover their costs. But, keep in mind, a big part of their losses right now are attributed to the bizarre requirement in law for them to fund out their health care and retirement benefits for 75 freakin years. USPS should be allowed to charge what they want. I also have to laugh at them complaining about laws that make them fund retirements. If they are going to be offered, they should be funded. It should be illegal to underfund pensions. If you can't fund them, get rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:47 PM) USPS should be allowed to charge what they want. I also have to laugh at them complaining about laws that make them fund retirements. If they are going to be offered, they should be funded. It should be illegal to underfund pensions. If you can't fund them, get rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 US highway system as a subway map: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:46 PM) False. They do pay for infrastructure in the way that the internet companies do. They fund and build the delivery systems for their products. Are you talking about the equipment they build to bring oil to the US and then to the service stations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 07:32 AM) Are you talking about the equipment they build to bring oil to the US and then to the service stations? And the service stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts