DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How much of the ailing roadways are under the authority of the Federal government?
What your asking does not take into account the idea of Congress passing a bill into law authorizing a sum of money to be distributed to each state for the purpose of improving roadway condition (this includes repairing/redoing bridges). You would have us believe even a single state would say 'no' to such funds?
That is the point of this thread, DS. That no one argues the state of roadway conditions in America are in 'excellent' condition. But rather the levels each state's roadways are actually in and improving them. Recall that bridge that collapse in Minnosota during evening rush hour a few years back? That bridge was considered 'structurally deficient' and most likely should not have be in use. Unfortunately that was the only bridge for a major highway system to use.
To sum up your rambling... no answer.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Has the money from the gas taxes we've collected over the years actually gone to pay for highway upkeep over the years?
You might find the answer to your question here, DS.
Another non answer.
However, this link states that 92% of a State's attributions to the Federal Hwy Fun will be returned to the State. Now, that could mean that 92% of the attributions to the Federal Hwy Fund will be spent upgrading Federal Roads in that State, or it could mean that 92% of those attributions will be sent to the State's DOT fund. Big difference there.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Outside of Federal roads, States and localities should pay for their own repair. If the Federal road repair budget isn't going solely to repair of Federal roads - that is, if there is money disbursed to States for non-Federal road repair - that practice should be curtailed. If Minnesota's non-Federal roads need taking care of, why should people living in FLA give a fuck (or have their dollars spent outside FLA)?
What we know of economics as it relates to taxes and areas of wealth is simple: the wealthy areas can handle their infrastructure problems just fine; all others have problems. So if towns/counties are left to their own devices there will be larger parts of the country were a 'dirt road' is the norm rather than the exception. Which is why the state steps in to off-set some of the costs to the individual towns. Since dirt roads tend to have more potholes than paved ones.
It can be broken down into regional efforts, if localities aren't your thing. Toledo has City Roads, County Roads and State roads. The County has Road Maintenance that takes care of their roads, as do Ohio, and the City of Toledo. They don't, generally, plow/salt each other's roads in the Winter, and they don't, generally, maintain each other's roads, either. Why shouldn't Lucas County residents pay for Lucas County roads? Why should Wood County residents pay for Lucas County roads? There are State gas taxes, and those gas taxes should go towards maintaining State roads.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do we need to increase gas taxes? Possibly. That depends on how well/poorly current gas taxes have been spent, and are being spent. If there is legitimate cause for an increase in gas taxes, those taxes should be raised as local as possible. If Toledo hasn't been taking care of its roads, why should people in Cincinnati have money diverted to Toledo, rather than keeping it in Cincinnati for Cincinnati roads?
Well, conservatives/libertarians will state 90% of it was wasted to begin with. I'm going to assume your asking from the stand point of an honest question rather than a political attack. Given how costs have risen in everything else, its fair to say the costs to improving roadways has also increased. However, matching gas taxes to inflation is politically suicide for any politician. Which is the number one reason such thing do not happen. But when bridges collapse during rush hour traffic, who gets blamed? The Government. So the government gets blamed because politicians are more egotistical than sensible with reality. The taxes laws would need to be re-engineered to handle inflation into the final calculation.
I don't think you have a clue what a conservative or a libertarian thinks, so I'm not going to address that statement any more than this.
Costs have increased. I do not deny that. The problem you will run into, though, is that as we continue to improve fuel efficiency, we'll continue to reduce the rate at which money goes into the highway funds. What happens if half of all drivers switch to electric cars? Gas taxes will be slashed. Is it fair to increase the amount of gas tax to compensate? That way, gas users pay the bulk of the cost of maintaining the highways. How fucking stupid is that? Should I have to pay more taxes for uses that don't have anything to do with the roads (lawn mower, snow thrower, etc.)?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Plus, the less government relies on a higher level of government for money, the less likely ability for that higher level of government to, in effect, coerce the more local government. If a State didn't want to pass seat belt laws, they wouldn't be able to be manipulated into passing them to continue to get Federal highway dollars.
Ah, the 'Limited Government' idea. I like how you tried to sneak this one in....
Its been very much understood and recorded in history that local governments used power to create one class of Americans as being better than another. Or have you forgotten 'Brown vs. Board of Education'? Yes, state and federal governments should be the ones to set the standards of roadways. Makes it easier to handle 50 or 1 types of roadway rules, regulations, designs, etc. Rather than 1,400+. American culture, wealth, and technology all improved due to the federal and state governments enacting rules to roadways.
Sneak it in? Hardly. It's pretty much in everything I post. How's that for sneaky?
A State should be able to pass the laws it deems proper. The Federal Government doesn't really have authority outside of Federal roadways for passing laws. But, you totally missed that point. What does Brown v. Board of Ed. have to do with roads?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Lucas County (Ohio) was trying to raise money for the Toledo Zoo. The Zoo wanted to expand and blah, blah, blah. The County Commissioners actually looked into forcing bordering Ohio Counties (Fulton, Ottawa, and Wood) to pass County levies to support the Toledo Zoo, on the basis that the Toledo Zoo attracted people from all over, increasing revenues in those Counties as well as Lucas County.
What does the zoo have to do with roadways? Absolutely nothing. So your argument here is rather invalid. A similar argument was used in Massachusetts & "The Big Dig' project. The Big Dig was to create a multi-highway underneath Boston, MA. To take Route 93 from elevated highway to the underground (even under the subway system, or 'T' as its known). From an engineering perspective its a technical marvel. From the average commuter perspective, its the same traffic without sunlight. Though Boston did get a beautiful bridge out of the deal. As for the argument? Why should those towns/cities on the western side of the state have to pay for the project. Since in all likelihood their citizens would not benefit from it. The answer was simple....More Voters lived East of Worcester, MA than West.
Democracy at it's finest, no? My example wasn't specific to roads, but indicative of the current operation of government, and how it attempts to spread the cost around, simply by pretending the benefits are also enjoyed by the entirety of those paying the price.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Personally, I have no problem with increased taxes, provided the current tax revenues aren't being wasted too much (per my perception).
Well, to someone that supports 'Limited Goverment', 'government waste' is a usually shouted mantra. That those whom argue for 'Limited Government' will bitch about even a 0.01% waste as being a MONSTROUSLY LARGE waste of funds. And often those same types have no problem with companies and corporations (i.e. governments onto themselves) have waste levels that are far higher.
I don't want increased taxes for the sake of increased taxes. But those taxes are well defined as to what they will handle/accomplish. The original gas tax was created back in the 1950's. I think an argument could be made, in light of current roadway conditions, to increase that amount (by how much is the next question) to a level that handles the current problems and possibly start a fund to pay for future increases without having to update the tax every few years.
Started in 1932, and last updated in the 90's, I think. But, do go on.
We could increase fuel taxes, but that doesn't really help build a future fund, as fuel usage may not keep rising. We're already seeing higher fuel efficiency being important to consumers, and there will continue to be an increased interest. What's the point of continuing to fund the roads with higher and higher gas taxes when that will likely lead to a reduction in fuel usage, and a weak source for funding?
quote:
This of course assumes conditions remain in place. Technology and Resource Management both have funny ways of changing future conditions.
If Doc Brown ever brings back the vehicles that don't need roads, we can keep the gas tax being the funding source, as those vehicles won't be damaging the roads like those that require gasoline. 
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
How should the USA Fund its highway system? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread