It's the infrastructure, stupid!!!

glhs837

Power with Control
http://thenewspaper.com/news/50/5048.asp

Yep, need to raise that ol gas tax, not enough money in the fund to keep up with needed repairs and improvements, but meanwhile

"The US Department of Transportation last week announced it would send $1 billion in cash raised from gasoline taxes to subsidize the construction of an old-fashioned trolley in San Diego, California"

"Officials chose to advance the billion-trolley project over alternatives that included bus rapid transit and expansion of the existing freeways used by nine out of ten workers. Construction begins October 22, with the eleven-mile route scheduled to open for service in 2021."

And in DC, we have this stupidity.

"Washington, DC's newly opened, and long troubled, $230 million trolley project raises questions about the financial sustainability of such projects. The DC streetcar does not charge riders along its 2.4 mile route for fear of discouraging ridership. That means the $8 million spent annually to support monthly ridership of about 70,000 imposes a net subsidy of $9.50 each time anyone steps on board. Members of Congress have questioned the wisdom of the expensive project."

"In terms of performance, The Washington Post estimated the DC trolley took 26 minutes to travel 2.2 miles along H Street, saving one minute over walking. A trip by Uber, by contrast, took just 7 minutes. An Uber ride over the same route would cost an estimated $7 to $9, and even less with a shared ride, compared to the subsidized cost of $9.50."
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
This is what I've mentioned in the past regarding the gas tax - I wouldn't object to it if the funds weren't pissed all over the country on stuff not strictly for maintaining roads.

Now that they've squandered the cash on bull####, they want to ask for more.

On a similar note, I have the same qualms about national money spent on ANY infrastructure largely or wholly enjoyed by people living in a single area - one city or one state and so on.
While there's an obligation to maintain interstate highways and bridges, any city that is crumbling from mismanagement over decades REALLY can't go crying to Uncle Sugar for money for failed infrastructure, because they refused to do it themselves.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
"In terms of performance, The Washington Post estimated the DC trolley took 26 minutes to travel 2.2 miles along H Street, saving one minute over walking. A trip by Uber, by contrast, took just 7 minutes. An Uber ride over the same route would cost an estimated $7 to $9, and even less with a shared ride, compared to the subsidized cost of $9.50."

:lmao: Our gummint at work.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
"In terms of performance, The Washington Post estimated the DC trolley took 26 minutes to travel 2.2 miles along H Street, saving one minute over walking. A trip by Uber, by contrast, took just 7 minutes. An Uber ride over the same route would cost an estimated $7 to $9, and even less with a shared ride, compared to the subsidized cost of $9.50."

They should have just put one of those bouncy conveyer belts in next to the sidewalk. Like at the airport.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Members of Congress have questioned the wisdom of the expensive project.

Anyone note this? THIS seems to be the problem. Congress gives money to departments without controlling tightly how the money is spent. THAT is among the strongest of Congress' obligations.

Write laws, not regulations. Fund projects, not departments. Put specific limits on what funds may be used for.
 

tommyjo

New Member
On a similar note, I have the same qualms about national money spent on ANY infrastructure largely or wholly enjoyed by people living in a single area - one city or one state and so on.
While there's an obligation to maintain interstate highways and bridges, any city that is crumbling from mismanagement over decades REALLY can't go crying to Uncle Sugar for money for failed infrastructure, because they refused to do it themselves.


Ummm...this is how our system works. It is one of the primary reasons why our country has a rather well diversified national economy and is the world's largest economy. The ability of the national government to subsidize local infrastructure spending allows for local areas to grow.

If your warped view were implemented portions of our population would still be reliant upon outhouses and horse carts.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ummm...this is how our system works. It is one of the primary reasons why our country has a rather well diversified national economy and is the world's largest economy. The ability of the national government to subsidize local infrastructure spending allows for local areas to grow.

If your warped view were implemented portions of our population would still be reliant upon outhouses and horse carts.

What is the Constitutional justification for the federal government to subsidize local area growth.

Where would be reliant upon outhouses and horse carts? What federal project provided cars and indoor plumbing to those specific areas?

I know you can't answer, but I'm asking anyway.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If your warped view were implemented portions of our population would still be reliant upon outhouses and horse carts.

For one, you're making sweeping generalizations - for instance, the town of Leonardtown shouldn't be asking the federal government to pave its roads - the residents should do that.
THOSE are the kinds of infrastructure things cities are clamoring for, because they refuse to use their money to make year to year maintenance on things. We have large cities with busted water mains that are generations old,
because they'd much rather pay employees to sit around and do nothing.

My remark isn't "warped" - we have cities across the nation going bankrupt not because they didn't have enough federal money - they are crumbling for many reasons, but one of the biggest is because they piss away their own money and neglect their infrastructure the way your elderly uncle ignores his health.

Secondly, your argument is just wrong. Cities across the country weren't formed because massive federal dollars were pumped in to create them.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
For one, you're making sweeping generalizations - for instance, the town of Leonardtown shouldn't be asking the federal government to pave its roads - the residents should do that.
THOSE are the kinds of infrastructure things cities are clamoring for, because they refuse to use their money to make year to year maintenance on things. We have large cities with busted water mains that are generations old,
because they'd much rather pay employees to sit around and do nothing.

My remark isn't "warped" - we have cities across the nation going bankrupt not because they didn't have enough federal money - they are crumbling for many reasons, but one of the biggest is because they piss away their own money and neglect their infrastructure the way your elderly uncle ignores his health.

Secondly, your argument is just wrong. Cities across the country weren't formed because massive federal dollars were pumped in to create them.

I would argue that the roads are for, among other things, the transportation of mail and therefore Post Roads, which are federal obligations.

A trolley system in a given city has no business being federally funded any more than a train that resides within one state. Maintenance of the roads, and creations of new ones, are by definition of Article One, Section Eight within the purview of the federal government.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I would argue that the roads are for, among other things, the transportation of mail and therefore Post Roads, which are federal obligations.

An obligation which by no means necessarily requires a vehicle.
The Post Office still manages to deliver mail into private areas - for example, the Ranch Estates - which are maintained by the people who live on them.
And if you're referring solely to "post roads", they don't exist anymore. I might even argue that the existence of the Postal Service is largely in doubt over the next fifty years.
I think the main thing keeping it intact is the Postal Union.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
An obligation which by no means necessarily requires a vehicle.
The Post Office still manages to deliver mail into private areas - for example, the Ranch Estates - which are maintained by the people who live on them.
And if you're referring solely to "post roads", they don't exist anymore. I might even argue that the existence of the Postal Service is largely in doubt over the next fifty years.
I think the main thing keeping it intact is the Postal Union.

Come on. A Previous administration ordered these trolleys years ago to be placed down by bowling on tracks already there. It never happened, so instead of paying for the trolleys and leaving them where they were they brought them to Washington and built this boodoggle on H street.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Come on. A Previous administration ordered these trolleys years ago to be placed down by bowling on tracks already there. It never happened, so instead of paying for the trolleys and leaving them where they were they brought them to Washington and built this boodoggle on H street.

Ummm - did you intend to reply to someone else?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
An obligation which by no means necessarily requires a vehicle.
The Post Office still manages to deliver mail into private areas - for example, the Ranch Estates - which are maintained by the people who live on them.
And if you're referring solely to "post roads", they don't exist anymore. I might even argue that the existence of the Postal Service is largely in doubt over the next fifty years.
I think the main thing keeping it intact is the Postal Union.

While I am not one to argue for creative interpretations of the Constitution, I would say any road that a postal carrier delivers mail, or that trucks bring mail to post offices, etc., are still post roads. I would also argue that, since the original intent was to deliver government goods to government centers, anything that provides government information to the citizens would also be a "post road", such as the internet :poke:
 

glhs837

Power with Control
While I am not one to argue for creative interpretations of the Constitution, I would say any road that a postal carrier delivers mail, or that trucks bring mail to post offices, etc., are still post roads. I would also argue that, since the original intent was to deliver government goods to government centers, anything that provides government information to the citizens would also be a "post road", such as the internet :poke:

Good lord, that's a Reed Richards class stretch right there :) ..... ARAPNET, sure, after that, not so much.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Ummm - did you intend to reply to someone else?

Probably, sorry.

Anyway. Washington DC is a Federal city with the worst roads I have ever encountered.
They receive a large Govt. check and piss it away , they sure don't fix the streets with it.
They have traffic camera's everywhere. Why don't they take some of those fines and pave the freaking streets.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
Nope, as noted, the feds should be paying for interstate roads only. Local roads, not at all.
US Constitution said:
The Congress shall have Power To.....establish Post Offices and Post Roads....

So, what is a post road?

Dictionary.com said:
1. (formerly) a road with stations for furnishing horses for postriders, mail coaches, or travelers.
2. a road or route over which mail is carried.

:shrug: Seems pretty clear the roads are post roads.

The Eisenhower Interstate System had as much to do with defense and leaving an area in case of atomic attack as it did with interstate travel and commerce.
 
Top