Economic journalist Robert Samuelson has a brilliant piece about the inadequacy of the deficit-reduction plan from the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Commission. It’s not enough to merely trim budgets, says Samuelson. We need a “new public philosophy,” one that rejects the idea that people are entitled to federal subsidies for everything from mass transit to social security.
“It’s not in the national interest to subsidize mass transit, because most benefits are enjoyed locally,” Samuelson said in the portion of the article most pertinent to topics raised by this blog: “If the locals want mass transit, they should pay for it.” This is actually not a new philosophy but one that most Americans intuitively understood before the so-called Progressive Era.
Yet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) just proposed to fund transportation by raising federal gasoline taxes by 15 cents a gallon. Of course, by tradition, 3 of those cents would be dedicated to mass transit, so naturally the American Public Transportation Association supports the proposal. Yet such an increase is unnecessary and will lead to enormous amounts of wasteful spending. Highways can and should pay for themselves out of local user fees, and transit should as well.
Micheal was really ashamed of this. was bit cialis line order okay with it because Micheal gave her the oral stimulation and she was able to achieve the highest plasma concentration increases for about one hour and its effect can be experienced within 30 to 45 minutes to give you fuller, harder, bigger and stronger erections needed for performance in the bed. This reduces androgenic activity in the scalp, treating hair loss began. levitra 20mg tablets Erectile dysfunction is a condition, which persuade a tadalafil price man s potential to achieve or uphold an erection. Be sure that the company is an accredited member of The Association of Settlement Companies (TASC) and that they have a cheapest viagra league match.
Meanwhile, long-time high-speed rail supporter Joseph Vranich offers several reasons why California should back away from its high-speed rail plans. Despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, the state is broke and companies are moving out. Although I don’t think Schwarzenegger is entirely to blame for the state’s problems, as Vranich implies, he could have at least stopped high-speed rail in 2008. Instead, he was dazzled by the promises of its advocates and failed to cast a critical eye on what are now known to be overestimated benefits and underestimated costs.
Also failing to read the tea (party) leaves, the Department of Transportation has just granted $25 million each towards new streetcar lines in Charlotte, Cincinnati, Ft. Worth, and St. Louis. Rather than improve livability as Secretary of Immobility LaHood claims, these projects will simply help drain the economic vitality away from these communities.
It would be nice if that new philosophy of government were to reach the DOT soon.
A fully loaded bus weighs 44000 pounds on three axles. That’s about 15000 pounds per axle. A fully laden bus creates 1354 times the wear and tear on the road of a fully laden Honda Accord. They actually create 50 percent more wear and tear on the road than a 60,000 pound tractor trailer because the weight is distributed to only three axles on a bus.
Unless the buses are paying 1354 times the taxes and “user fees†of the Honda Accord then the bus is being subsidized by the driver of the Honday Accord and even by the tractor trailer owner.
Of course, I support any and all rail projects of any kind. I am a-OK with subsidies in this particular area.
I to put that in there before the original nutcase said it himself. Well, OK, he wouldn’t have actually said the last sentence, but he would surely agree with it in private.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Of course, by tradition, 3 of those cents would be dedicated to mass transit, so naturally the American Public Transportation Association supports the proposal.
I must respectfully disagree with your choice of the word “tradition” above.
The diversion of highway user revenues to transit started in the 1970’s, when “flexing” of highway dollars from road projects to transit was first allowed (much of the District of Columbia’s Interstate Highway system was canceled in that decade and the unspent dollars funded part of the construction cost of the Metrorail system).
But such practices were literally codified into federal law by Ronald Reagan’s Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-424), which created the “Mass Transit Account” of the Highway Trust Fund and gave mass transit a direct (and “dedicated”) money pipeline from highway users.
Often the diversion of gas tax funds to transit is justified by arguments that it is reducing congestion for auto commuters. Data on whether transit does reduce rush hour congestion would impact the policy choices on how the gas tax is divided.
metrosucks,
Don’t read more into what I wrote than what I wrote. I don’t support any kind of subsidy to any form of transit; cars, buses or trains, or planes; roadways, railways, or airports.
It would be really helpful to the discourse on this blog if you stopped projecting whatever personal issues you are having at home onto these comments.
before the so-called Progressive Era.
Yer a hoot, Randal. Let us take away your wages, work week laws, food protection laws, etc. and watch you whine and howl about the injustice.
Ah, well. Th’ TeaPurty will go the way of th’ Birchers soon enough. Not that we will have any decent political economy or leadership after that, but still.
DS
The public sector serves itself by insisting to citizens that having people pay for their projects is the fair and just thing to do. I don’t know how often I have heard public officials claim if we don’t get the grant money someone else will. That attitude is part of why we have a national debt around 13 or 14 trillion dollars (I can’t keep up with the fast pace of spending).
In the long run it’s more about keeping their own agencies fat and happy than what services are delivered to the public. By instilling the idea of entitlement the public sector keeps demand up and their positions safe. Unfortunately for them the well is nearly dry and the con game nearly over.
C. P. Zilliacus,
As you note, the tradition of dedicating 20 percent of all increases in the federal gas tax to transit began in 1982 and has been observed religiously ever since. It will take a major battle to overcome that tradition. While I am sure there are many new Republican members in the House who would support a change in that tradition, Republicans are still a minority in the Senate. APTA joined AASHTO’s call for an increase in gas taxes fully aware that this tradition is likely to be followed.
Since the current gas tax is 18.3 cents, and the tradition began when it was only 4 cents, right now less than 3 cents per gallon is dedicated to transit. A 15 cent increase in gas taxes means less than a doubling of the gas tax but more than a doubling of funds for transit.
I’ll believe Jardinero1 when he stops singling out truckers and cars for attacks and focuses on passenger rail, the real waste. After all, highways provide a useful public service that everyone benefits from. The small subsidy this service receives is a far cry from the pork thrown at utterly useless, wasteful passenger rail. Bear in mind that rail does steal money from highway funds too.
The Antiplanner posted:
As you note, the tradition of dedicating 20 percent of all increases in the federal gas tax to transit began in 1982 and has been observed religiously ever since.
I generally prefer to say codified into law (even when I do not agree with said law).
I also pointed this out to highlight that Republican Ronald Reagan approved this codification of diverting highway user revenues to urban mass transit.
It will take a major battle to overcome that tradition.
I believe you are correct.
While I am sure there are many new Republican members in the House who would support a change in that tradition, Republicans are still a minority in the Senate.
While many Republicans might be skeptical of those provisions (as am I), many of those very same Republicans claim to worship Ronald Reagan (I am not a Republican and I definitely do not worship Reagan).
APTA joined AASHTO’s call for an increase in gas taxes fully aware that this tradition is likely to be followed.
That seems reasonable.
Some of the loudest promoters of increases in motor fuel tax rates are also the loudest promoters of diversion of those motor fuel tax revenues to transit projects.
Since the current gas tax is 18.3 cents, and the tradition began when it was only 4 cents, right now less than 3 cents per gallon is dedicated to transit. A 15 cent increase in gas taxes means less than a doubling of the gas tax but more than a doubling of funds for transit.
If that “tradition” is adhered to, you would be correct. And what would the result of such a large increase in federal dollars for transit lead to? Ever more questionable new rail transit projects?
Borealis:
“Often the diversion of gas tax funds to transit is justified by arguments that it is reducing congestion for auto commuters. Data on whether transit does reduce rush hour congestion would impact the policy choices on how the gas tax is divided.”
Rail transit does not reduce Highway demand. Rail transit provides an alternative to sitting in traffic on the highway (albeit often involving standing in a rail car).
Daytime highway demand in general simply expands to fill the capacity. Whatever a rail transit line takes away from a highway’s traffic is quickly replaced by latent demand for other trips. The only way to eliminate highway congestion is to eliminate highways. Highway congestion can be reduced by ripping up individual lanes of a freeway. This has been amply demonstrated by the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and the West Side Highway in New York.
OTOH, if you want more congestion, you can simply build more and wider highways. 16 lane freeways in Chicago and Atlanta amply demonstrate that with their daily standstill of traffic despite theoretical 35,000-40,000 vehicles per hour capacity.
The comment above is certain proof that Andrew is a libtard progressive. Only a deluded progressive still believes that old canard, that building highways increases congestion. They actually did a study on this. Unlike progressives, who simply mouth this lie and hope no one double-checks it.
metrosucks,
Can you post a link for the study on highway capacity and congestion?
Here are some links:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/wsdot-you-can-build-your-way-out-congestion
http://www.portlandfacts.com/roads/buildwayout.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Road-More-Traveled-Congestion-Matters/dp/0742551121/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
An actual study was run in Texas, but I can’t find it with a quick search; it may be referenced in one of the above links
“Daytime highway demand in general simply expands to fill the capacity. Whatever a rail transit line takes away from a highway’s traffic is quickly replaced by latent demand for other trips. The only way to eliminate highway congestion is to eliminate highways. Highway congestion can be reduced by ripping up individual lanes of a freeway. This has been amply demonstrated by the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and the West Side Highway in New York.” – Andrew
The human desire to travel as efficiently as possible can never be eliminated. Tearing up a freeway only removes the ability to do so. It’s the transportation equivalent of turning a guy into a unich because he engages in sex that some people don’t approve of.
More so, highway traffic does not magically expand to fill capacity. Dieing metros like Buffalo and Cleveland are not plagued by traffic issues. Long stretches of I80 in Nebraska or I29 in North Dakota are rarely at half their capacity let alone congested.
prk166, you might as well be arguing with a wall. Progressives believe what they believe, and that is it; no changing their minds.
metrosucks said:
prk166, you might as well be arguing with a wall. Progressives believe what they believe, and that is it; no changing their minds.
THWM: Just as you’ll stick by what ever far right stuff you say.