What does House passage of a health-care bill mean for transportation and planning issues? For one thing, the bill just passed includes the now-familiar (but wrong) assumption that we can make people healthier through social engineering. More important, it means some in Congress are going to start gearing up for reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs (even though no one seriously believes a bill will be passed in 2010).
One idea that has been around for awhile is for an infrastructure bank. But as faithful Antiplanner ally Ron Utt points out, what people call an infrastructure bank will be far from a true bank. Instead, it is likely to turn into an open-bucket pork fest in which states and cities come up with the most wildly expensive, inane projects to make sure they get “their share” of the take. Yes, at least some of the money the bank gives out will be in the form of loans, but it will be easy for states to “borrow” money against the taxes they expect to collect someday from their taxpayers.
The bigger debate, of course, is going to be between collective transport and personal transport. The door-to-door convenience of driving is so great that, even with huge subsidies, it is hard to imagine collective transport ever taking significant market share away from the automobile. And yet people fantasize endlessly about the benefits of high-speed rail, streetcars, and so forth.
Even without the convenience factor, driving beats almost all other forms of collective transportation on the cost issue alone. As the chart above shows, counting both user costs and subsidies, driving in 2008 cost about 23 cents per passenger mile; Amtrak about 59 cents; and urban transit more than 90 cents. I estimate high-speed rail will be mid-way between Amtrak and urban transit, and the user fee will depend on how much we subsidize it.
Ayurveda considers sexual pleasure as an important part of the couple’s foundation and if this discount viagra http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/01/20/the-many-worlds-of-mandolinist-extraordinaire-avi-avital/ will not only give erection problems but also many other problems due to its usage. All you sildenafil cost need to do is chew and swallow the pill 30 minutes before lovemaking. If you are buying 30 pills of a cheap sale viagra 100 milligram pack of Sildenafil Citrate. viagra shop usa A new study suggests overall assessment of an impotent man. The only forms of collective transportation that beat driving are commercial air carriers, which average an incredible 13 cents a passenger mile; and intercity buses, which aren’t shown because precise data are not available, but in the Boston-to-Washington corridor companies like Bolt and Megabus are charging less than 10 cents a passenger mile.
What makes intercity bus and air travel so cheap compared with Amtrak and urban transit? One answer is that the latter are obsolete forms of travel (especially urban rail transit). But another is that buses and airlines are private companies facing intense competition from one another and from other modes of travel. This gives them a huge incentive to both save money and fill seats.
In thrall to the unions, Amtrak’s and public transit’s costs are incredibly high. As long as they can rely on Uncle Sam’s deep pockets, they have no incentives to take a hard line with the unions. They also have political demands to operate in lot of places where there are few riders, so many Amtrak trains are only a third full, while the average transit bus or railcar is only a sixth full.
When was the last time you were on an airplane that wasn’t a redeye that was only a sixth, or even a third, full? I’ve been flying a lot lately and most are at least 95 percent full and the emptiest are still more than two-thirds full. Meanwhile, the best information available on intercity buses suggests they average two-thirds full.
Advocates of light rail crow when they get a handful of people out of their cars, while advocates of high-speed rail love to point to examples of trains replacing air service in Europe. But where is the virtue of replacing transportation that costs 15 to 25 cents a passenger mile with transport that costs 60 cents to a dollar a passenger mile or more? Anyone who truly supports collective transportation should want to privatize it, not throw more subsidies at it.
That, in a nutshell, is going to be the big debate in Congress once health care is done. Those who want to get people off of airplanes and out of their cars are going to have to explain why taxpayers should subsidize transport that costs four times as much when a much smaller investment in new technologies can produce far greater environmental benefits from the forms of transportation people use most.
What would it cost to triple ridership, to ~7% of passenger-miles?
Five times the cost as now? While increasing the energy/passenger-mile. Because, to triple riders, many more routes & times will need to be offered, with even less than avg riders of 9/bus & 21/LRT-car.
What will more transit ridership accomplish? People spending more time in transport.
Hey, it will be like the USSR, when the Politburo liked people spending hours in grocery lines, so that there’s less time & less energy to revolt.
Fer real, What will more transit ridership accomplish?
The purported goals are unrealistic & unachievable.
It’s funny, how these statists want transit to come to them, at others’ expense, & for low & medium density areas. Why? Cars are much easier.
And they want private businesses to locate everywhere, same type for each 1/2 mile, to walk to. There are not nearly sufficient enough customers for that.
If you don’t like NYC, Europe is your 3rd choice. Asia is where you should be, the Tigers: Hong Kong, Tapai, Singapore, Seoul or Tokyo.
Hey, for that dinky (4 mi) rail project from downtown Tuscon to the University, (1/2 paid for by Porkulus Package) its capital cost ($150 M)is about $40,000/rider (3,900/day).
Would it be prudent for any individual to pay even $10,000 for a car that would be driven only about 7 miles each day, along only one route? And without storage capacity?
They greatly over-estimated the amount of people living & working within a 1/2-mile, by at least 3x. There # has 1/8 of the urban population, either, living or working in 4 sq.mi. Tucson is a joke; it hasn’t had an office tower built since 1986. And it has only 1.5 freeways (I-10 & an offshoot I-17). AZ has no 3 digit Interstates.
Much more of that crapola spending can be expected.
Do we really want a national HSR for $1 trillion?
Stimulate economy w/more jobs? Net? For those in transportation (including construction), if more jobs, that means overall higher costs for transport.
Stimulate economy for each hub? That’s just rearranging spending.
For $ spent in visiting city, it’s not spent in home city.
I ride one of the USA mass-transit systems daily. Mainly because there’s no highway from where I live into the heart of the city where I work.
Today, two large women got into a shouting match because they couldn’t get comfortable sitting side-by-side on the seats. One of them said: “I paid for a seat and I’m going to sit down.” The other got up and stood for the rest of the trip.
If the government foray into health care has similar results to the government foray into the war on poverty (it increased poverty) then we’ll have many more and much larger obese rail riders that will demand more and larger seating on trains.
What’s next for Congress? Well, since the Constitution does not give Congress the ennumerated power to require its citizens to buy insurance from state-approved corporations, they sky’s the limit.
Maybe gov’t and the IRS will work on being able to fine me $2500 for each standard light bulb in my residence.
the bill just passed includes the now-familiar (but wrong) assumption that we can make people healthier through social engineering.
At least Randal puts the mendacious talking point right up front so we see his strategy immediately.
And good thing there is nothing about the interstate highway system in the Constitution, either, so money won’t be going to it.
Nor anything about public education, making it easier for some advocates to continue to try and dupe the handful of usual suspects with hokum such as that found above.
DS
Frank,
Is homeowners and Drivers insurance not mandated by the government where you live? Do you think people should be able to drive without liability insurance?
OFP2003 said:
“If the government foray into health care has similar results to the government foray into the war on poverty…”
I see what your saying. Since we’ve declared war on terrorism, acts of terrorism have dramatically increased. I suppose the war on drugs ain’t working either. Maybe it’s what we declare “war” on that’s the problem. I suppose I’m glad there is no official war of health care or transportation yet.
For car liability insurance, the justification given often is that driving it is a privilege.
That is wrong & not even a reason, but just a statement.
It is required for the protection of the persons or property that is hit, in case the driver cannot pay for damages.
There should be sex insurance that is need to buy–in case the “to be parents” do not have the responsibility or income to raise a child. Or just a parent license. That’s certainly off topic & doesn’t seem in line with liberty, but having a child can “affect others greatly”, financially & the child.
The Interstates were funded by gas tax & public education by property tax. They are for all & funded by all, mostly falling under the category of public good. It is true that the Constitution doe not expressly authorized those type of activities. Individual government health insurance is not even close, including being funded by just a few; it is not for general welfare, but for specific welfare.
Regardless, it is not proper & valid to just say that this gov expenditure is “wrong” & not Constitutionally specified, therefore the government can do anything. That’s been the approach to many things. Gov spending of GDP is now about 41%; way too high.
Doctors will be changing professions & leaving. Fewer students will choose medicine.
Wealthy people will be leaving to avoid these excessive taxes, which currently reach over 50% for some.
The economy is worse than before Obuma was elected (more than double out of work). The destruction of the economy is only in the beginning stage. Soon the debt will be 100% of GDP. US jobs are becoming too expensive. Borrowing & imports feed on each other & will keep increasing.
Hallo suckers, welcome to medicare.
I look forward to seeing you up here in Canada at our newly emerging private health care services.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
We got our little pinkie burnt good and proper up here in Canada and we are slowly pulling it out of the flame, but you damn clever Americans, way too smart to learn from the failures of others, by God when you run medicare, this time it’ll work, because you’re waaaay smarter than the Russians, the Germans, we Canuckis, the Brits and everyone else who went broke setting up a system of infinite demand coupled with finite supply.
Wabble away my Yanks, schadenfreude is good too.
bennett said:
“Is homeowners and Drivers insurance not mandated by the government where you live?”
The STATE where I live mandates automobile insurance. In fact, in every case that has been left to STATE government, as it should be, because the FEDERAL government is not authorized to do so.
There’s this little thing called the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Only one sentence. But it set up a federal republic of limited powers. One of those powers not given to the federal government–therefore reserved for the STATES–is the power to require citizens of the several states to purchase a state-approved product or service.
Is that graph representing federal subsidies? If so, the title should read: 2008 Federal Transportation Costs and Subsidies. Could I get some clarification on this?
A quick question of Amtrak and competition; is it illegal for a truly private company to take form due to the Rail Passenger Service Act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Passenger_Service_Act
Municipalities also own airports, therefore do not pay taxes on their property. Amtrak does operate many of its lines on private rail lines, owned and operated by private interest who pay taxes on their property and holdings.
I’m not familiar with too many private, international airports. This needs to be included in any comparison of different modes of travel.
The powers delegated to the U.S Legislature in the Constitution among many include:
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, and with the Indian tribes;”
One of the powers given to the Congress of the United States, and therefore NOT solely reserved for the states, is the regulation of commerce, which includes the requirement for certain types of insurance. Whether or not the bill is going to be successful, only time will tell, but it is within the limits of the constitution, at least legally, as precedence within the U.S Supreme Court rulings will show.
There are many valid concerns with this bill, but it is legal within the limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also states that no person shall “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” What is my conservative peers view on the Patriot Act considering this one sentence?
blacquejacqueshellac,
So it’s all doom and gloom? What’s a viable idea then? Let the poor die of colds and let the rich beat cancer? BTW, if you haven’t noticed, America is broke too, and that’s without socialized health care.
bennett,
Let the poor dies of colds? What colds are fatal? What colds have a cure?
What doom-&-gloom? As normal, you leftists are falsely misrepresenting the opposition & freedom.
What’s up w/ridiculous, exaggerated, extreme questioning?
Rich only beat cancer? Say 2% rich & 15% poor–How about the vast majority between?
Yes, the US is broke, so let’s become more broke?
Excess health costs–rough guess of 10% of people taking 80% of health care.
Let those people pay their full costs or let nature take over.
It’s a misconception that many people are dying early. (2M deaths/year OMG!)
Life expectancy is about 80. Although it is lower than some other nations, there are more murders, accidents & unhealthy lifestyles here. (Too bad there aren’t many more executions here.)
Also, the accounting is different. Many other countries don’t count a human death if birth does not result in life for several days. So, for the US, that counts as a lifespan of zero years.
People forget the socialized healthcare of Medicaid, for the poor, and Medicare, for the old. Both are massive redistribution. And emergency room healthcare cannot be denied. Part of the high cost in medicine is absorbing the costs of non-payments, plus litigation, extra tests, malpractice insurance, non-interstate competition, gov regs, buffet style services, etc.
These high costs & examples are another results of gov meddling, so the solution is more gov?
BTW, the ~15% of uninsured are roughly in 3 categories: illegal immigrants, people that pay cash for medical treatment, & people who are eligible, but haven’t signed for Medicaid.
Scott:
You throw out waaaay too many guesses and percentages w/o backing those assertions up. I do it too as a means to illustrate my line of thought, but you need to have some sort of evidence.
Scott,
I was responding to an exaggerated and extreme position taken by someone named “not you.” Yes my questioning was ridiculous. That’s the point.
And for the record, I agree with “most” of your analysis on health care cost. I’m not sure this bill is a good idea, using the legislation that has come about in the last 20 years as an example, I’m not holding my breath, but mandating that people have insurance is a good idea to me, much like I support state mandated drivers insurance.
As for “BTW, the ~15% of uninsured are roughly in 3 categories: illegal immigrants, people that pay cash for medical treatment, & people who are eligible, but haven’t signed for Medicaid,” I’m more interested in the other 85%. And don’t you think “people that pay cash for medical treatment” is double counting. That’s what responsible people who cannot afford insurance do when they go to the doctor.
ws, What are my guesses & %? What facts are dubious?
This continual vagueness is going nowhere.
Even though these discussion are not simple in yes/no or guilty,innocent, imagine being a lawyer (plaintiff or defendant): Broad accusations are insufficent. One cannot say that “This person is guilty of bad stuff. I rest my case.”
You illustrate by extreme ambiguity. I get specific w/facts.
I don’t even know what you are claiming my shortcomings are. A quote of mine isn’t necessary, but it’s unclear what my points you are even referring to.
bennett, You were the one claiming that health care will get incredibly worse & that many will die of non-fatal ailments & that only the wealthy will survive.
Some people have claimed that will happen without this new health deform pork taking.
The 85% who currently have insurance? Relevance. By definition of operation of insurance, the vast majority of insurance payees receive much less benefit that the payments. Look at car, life & home insurance. With no crashes, deaths or housing destruction, you are a winner, but have still paid premiums.
How are people who pay cash for medical, double counting? It saves money.
Imagine if car & home insurance paid for gas, oil, washing, tuning, repairs, roofing, landscape, utilities, appliances, etc. That’s how health insurance is working. Each person is paying for others’ many basics & there’s no cost control & no reason to limit coverage. The overall average goes way up.
The responsible person gets insurance with high deductible, paying for basics & having basically catastrophic coverage.
Existing conditions?
Imagine if your car or house needs many repairs or just had an accident, then get insurance.
What next for Congress?
I think they’ve got elections in a few months. Time to hit the campaign trail and promote their “accomplishments”.
…collective transport and personal transport….
Ooooh! Scaaaaary! You’ll be in a collective when riding the bus! Gosh! Better dead than red!
DS
bennett pontificated:
What a great leap from regulating commerce AMONG the states (which health care would not fall under since people in one state are not allowed to buy insurance across state lines) to just regulating commerce in general and then to requiring individuals to buy a service or product. Wait. It’s more than a great leap; it’s sheer statist idiocy.
The Founders never intended for the Commerce Clause as a way for the federal government to conduct centralized economic planning on such a massive scale. Unfortunately, it has been used and abused to regulate everything the federal government has no enumerated power to regulate, including the prohibition of owning or selling cannabis (regardless of whether or not it is done entirely with one state’s borders). (At least there was once a time when our government bothered to follow the rules and passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sell of alcohol–they didn’t pull that lame ass Commerce Clause statist bullshit then.)
For the love of god, stop reading the Constitution out of context. Follow Jefferson’s advice: “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses have been twisted and mangled to permit the growth of the leviathan state and its pervasive insinuation into every aspect of our daily lives. For the love of god, read the Founders before you pontificate and/or regurgitate big-L “Liberal” talking points.
Uh, Frank, the Founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Last I checked, that’s how the system was enacted, and that’s how it really functions. Or did they get that part wrong?
Please. SCOTUS? That is a huge part the Founders got wrong. How can a branch of government check government? It can’t. From FDR’s attempt to stack the Supreme Court to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States to the government sanction of separate but equal, the Supreme Court is a f**k up of epic proportions.
Each statist precedent set by the SUPREME Court increased the mass and inertia of the insatiable leviathan.
t g, a strict rule for almost all sane people is to assiduously avoid strict constructionists.
Jus’ remindin’.
DS
Scott:What are my guesses & %? What facts are dubious?
This continual vagueness is going nowhere.
ws:Just noting how you use “~x%” to describe a lot of things. I do it too, but you seem to do it a lot. That is all I was saying.
Frank:
If you want to get technical, the Constitution was intended for land owning (white) males. I think it’s a wonderful document and something we need to preserve, but sometimes taking it too literally and not interpreting it as a living document can have negative effects. People always say this: “What would our founding fathers say?”
I can’t always answer that, but what would the Founders say to the notion of giving everyone individual rights, irrespective of race or gender, back in the early 1800s? How many founders were arguing for a black man to have full rights borne to them by the Constitution? Probably not too many.
What is the constitutionality of the many Civil Rights Act, anyways? Who’s to say the government can mandate that one cannot turn down employment based on another person’s race? I can’t think of a bigger statist law.
But I’m damn glad we have such laws at the federal level because it protects everyone and anyone.
Hahaha, I love this argument.
This is unconstitutional.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is. The founders didn’t intend it that way.
The founders intended for the Supreme Court to interpret the law.
The Supreme Court?! They’re a bunch of fuckers!
Haha, I just find it really funny.
Anyone notice how health care industry stocks shot through the roof?
James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
“That James fellow is about as full of himself as one can get. Do you suppose he realizes we have no intent of replacing one King with another?” Rufus King of Massachusetts, one of the other 38 men who signed the Constitution, of 55 delegates, representing 12 states and 2.4 million free men.
But, seriously, Frank, I can see how reducing the fate of the country down to a single man’s wishes is the height of classical liberalism.
Rufus King, a Federalist buddy of Hamilton. Hamilton wanted a president elected for life who would choose the governors of the states. Sounds like a king to me.
Can you source your quote, please?
Signers of the constitution played an important role, no doubt, but one would think the author would have more background knowledge on the document’s writing and intent.
Speaking of representing other states, you should read this: http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm
Virginia had serious qualms about the Constitution and insisted on the 10th Amendment fearing that “[u]nless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.” To coax Virginia, the 10th Amendment was created and the State was assured of being able to nullify legislation that it believed unconstitutional.
Anyone notice how health care industry stocks shot through the roof?
Yes, we just passed a law that guarantees a large increase in health care spending.
I’m not familiar with too many private, international airports.
Australia has privatized its airports. So have New Zealand and the UK. Canada devolved control of its airports to the provinces, many of whom have leased them to private operators.
MJ,
I suppose I’m having a hard time figuring out how a “government takeover” of health care results in massive gains in the private sector. This seems to be more of a status quo, big government propping up big business type of bill, not a socialist overhaul. Have the feds nationalized something that I don’t know about?
-b
Moyers recently had a number of experts on discussing the ACA, and as they explained the corporate giveaway in the (then) bill, his face got more and more grim. Hopefully there is enough time to get rid of the things Rs and Corps put in to ruin the legislation.
DS
bennett, the costs are socialized, but you’re right, the system is corporatist. this isn’t a government takeover, but a government mandate to purchase insurance from government-sanctioned businesses, many of which were mandated and funded into existence with the HMO Act of 1973.
Bennett,
I assume you’re referring to my post @30. It didn’t mention anything about a government takeover. But I agree that the result will be a massive gain for the private sector. I stand by my comment that the primary result of the bill will be to increase the demand for health care services, thus raising prices and leading to overall higher levels of spending.