A new report from The Road Information Project (TRIP) estimates that rebuilding and expanding the Interstate Highway System to meet twenty-first century needs will require increasing annual expenditures on the system from $23 billion to $57 billion per year. The report says that the highways “are wearing out and showing signs of their advanced age, often heavily congested, and in need of significant reconstruction, modernization and expansion.”
However, the numbers in the report don’t necessarily support this. The report admits that only 3 percent of interstate highway pavements are in poor condition, while another 8 percent is considered mediocre and 9 percent fair. That leaves the vast majority of the system, 79 percent, in good condition. Similarly, only 3 percent of interstate highway bridges are in poor condition or considered structurally deficient.
Congestion is a problem, but it is confined mainly to urban roads. Only 18 percent of interstate highway miles are considered congested, says the report.
These numbers certainly don’t make a compelling case for spending $34 billion more tax dollars a year on the highway system. I certainly agree with TRIP that the interstate highways are important — they comprise 2.6 percent of lane miles but carry 26 percent of highway traffic — and that they are safer than any other roads in the country.
In total, the report estimates that the system has a $91 billion state-of-good-repair backlog. That’s less than the backlog for the nation’s transit systems, which is mostly for rail transit. Rail transit lines are less than 14,000 miles long, so the maintenance backlog per rail mile is more than three times greater than for highways. The report also estimates that about $33 billion more will be needed to expand the system’s capacity. That totals to $123 billion, which somehow means spending $34 billion more per year than is now being spent for 20 years.
Super P-Force contains 100 http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/amy-geldhof/ order cheap cialis mg of Sildenafil citrate. Numerous individuals utilizing this medication don’t have genuine reactions.In the event that you recognize any reactions not recorded above, contact your specialis online pill t. Smoking found a biggest menace for the male reproductive system, low libido level, low sexual desire, etc. which pamelaannschoolofdance.com cialis uk results erection during sexual performance. generic cialis from canada With enchanting aroma, the drug also acts as an aphrodisiac. The report never says how these expenses should be paid. Given the current mood of Democrats in Congress, it would all come from deficit spending. This would be a terrible idea, if only because it would then be used to justify similar deficit spending for high-speed rail and other boondoggles.
Let’s say we agree that the nation should spend $34 billion more per year. Americans drove 836 billion miles on interstate highways in 2019. Tolls averaging just 4 cents a vehicle-mile would cover the $34 billion. Make the tolls 7 cents a mile and they will cover all of the costs of maintaining the system. That will free up gas taxes that are now being spent on the system so they can be used instead to pay for local highways and roads, which currently are paid for mostly out of property, sales, and income taxes.
Of course, tolls shouldn’t be the same everywhere. They should be higher on congested urban highways, both to relieve congestion and to provide funds for expanding those roads. Tolls have the virtue that they can be used to determine where capacity expansions are truly needed. If the tolls on a particular road earn a surplus over and above what that road needs, then that road should be expanded.
It isn’t even necessary that all of the interstate highways be tolled. Technically, the interstates are owned by the states, but Congress has restricted the states from tolling most of them. All Congress needs to do is let the states toll them as they see fit, and state highway agencies will do what needs to be done in each state. There is no need for federal deficit spending or raising federal gasoline taxes.
Instead of trying to board the gravy train that some politicians want to start up, highway advocates should insist that roads pay for themselves. Any gravy train, after all, is going to emphasize trains over highways, so will end up ignoring the parts of the Interstate Highway System that truly have problems.
I get into lengthy debates about “Federal funding” in transit/trains/roads, etc. They argue that the GDP those cities produce justify the expenditure on the federal level. They fail to realize without subsidized transportation; they may have the incentive to move elsewhere. Silicon Valley provides transportation for it’s employees that competes With BART.
The real issue is
1: Getting the federal government OUT of the transportation infrastructure funding business.
2: Setting budgets for infrastructure construction based on expected revenues
3: Putting a moratorium on new construction until state transportation depts can produce clear and credible financial statements for their transit schemes; Of course they never will.
4: De-regulating the transit industry and ending the political clout the taxi industry has over vehicular transportation service. Turn of the 20th century, Jitneys were ubiquitous form of transit for those that didn’t own a car. At the turn of the century a man could buy a car paint the word “TAXI” on it and he was in business for himself.
Anyone against tolling highways should take a trip on the Ohio Turnpike. Smooth, fast, safe, well-maintained and uncongested.
.
“The road is owned and maintained by the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission … ”
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Turnpike
..and one thing in particular is challenging the govt corruption in the acquisition stage construction. Namely when selecting firms to do work. Things that cost a dollar end up costing two dollars. Dealer markup in resource acquisition is ubiquitous. Take for example defense acquisition…One of the most dealer markup and political nepotism prone.
Take for instance; the M60 machine gun, an otherwise simple line item. An M60 to actually build one With a reputable firm honestly costs 500 dollars, but the government pays 12,000. The Gunsmiths who actually make an M60, Small family businesses, who have virtually NO political clout. Some in business for a century. Smith & Wesson, has barely 2000 employees total and vast majority of their sales is Commercial; so responsible financial behavior is essential for their survival. So what does the government do? Alot of times they give the contract to someone whose never built a machine gun but has Huge political clout or one who makes the weapon and accompanies huge dealer markup.
The last time S&W got a contract from the Pentagon was the M76 SMG, and in 1968 cost 129 dollars to produce. An M16….honestly can be produced for 300 dollars. FN’s M240 machine gun…….. is no doubt better; the honest production cost, even accounting for NATO spec and quality control, nitride coating, etc…Probably 1000 dollars to build…FN sells them to the Army for over 21,000.
“Given the current mood of Democrats in Congress, it would all come from deficit spending.”
I would caution blaming just Democrats for deficit spending. When presented with a budget surplus in 2001 the Republicans immediately cut taxes and started deficit spending, then increasing the deficit to pay for middle eastern wars. Then again after Trump’s election in 2016 cutting taxes and running up deficits when the debt should be paid down in good economic times. Under Keynesian economic theory it is fine to deficit spend during downturn, but then in good times the deficit should be paid down.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
I would propose that with democracy, certainly “the worst form of government except for all the others” voters don’t want to pay taxes and therefore vote for politicians who will add long term debt. We need to foster a reality of the dangers of long term debt. It is significant that prosperous countries such as Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark have relatively low debt to GDP ratio around 35% see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Certainly as voters we should push for responsible spending. Want a war in Iraq? Then taxes got up. Want high speed rail? Then taxes go up. This should result in more realistic budgeting by either party.
Excellent points, Paul, and your rebuke of singling out Dems for deficit spending is spot on.
.
However, neither party wants to pull the plug on the gravy train as politicians’ main concern is getting re-elected.
.
The entire economy has been nationalized, whether people recognize it or not, so it’s just too late. Hang on, grab some popcorn, and try to enjoy the crash and burn.
Curb federal spending with a Constitutional Amendment.
The Federal budget shall not exceed more than a given percentage of the nations tax revenue or GDP.
I singled out Democrats not because of deficit spending but because of rail — the Dems are much more interested in high-speed rail, light rail, etc. than the Republicans. TRIP seems to think that the Dems will increase spending on highways too nut
I am skeptical — the House bill, for example, contained a “fix-it first” poison pill that applied to highways but not transit or Amtrak.
@lazyreader, you bringing up jitney has a current day component. Quite a few transit agencies – like Jacksonville FL’s JTA – are pushing to run little 10 passenger robobuses around town. I’ve never understood the point. If we ever have automated buses, there’s not need for a route. There’s not need for the whole transit paradigm. Welll, other than to maintain a monopoly.
@prk166: It doesn’t matter if robocars take over 2025, 2030, 20XX year.
THe regulatory hurdle to jitney’s was passed decades ago and reinforced in cities for various reasons…
“Safety, fairness, traffic, congestion, whatever”
The basic emphasis is, I could take a 9 passenger van and give under table rides…instead of paying me. They can fork over and pump gas on my behalf….
California passed the law against the Part Time Gig economy……we know vested interests pushed for that legislation (Look at all the businesses that got wavers…doctors, lawyers, etc)