America's aging infrastructure...

[Captain Worley]

I'm not sure I buy into the government making it easier to have a car. Between a portion of property taxes, a portion of state and federal income tax, and state and federal fuel taxes, I'd say car owners are funding both roads AND mass transit.

Also, people with heavy SUVs are penalized in that they buy more fuel, and thus pay more taxes. I'm really not sure any more penalties are needed there.

I still maintain that the majority of Americans would choose their car over any form of mass transit because it gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there.

[pr sc]

Back to the basic problem, use honest, reliable contractors, hire US Citizens at a decent (not exorbitant) wage, thereby increasing the tax base to local, state and federal government agencies, earmarking the proper proportion of those taxes back into the cost of correcting / rebuilding roads and bridges. Maybe???

[Neo]

Also, people with heavy SUVs are penalized in that they buy more fuel, and thus pay more taxes. I'm really not sure any more penalties are needed there.

Of course that does nothing for another huge (maybe more so) problem which is pollution. In areas such as Charlotte the area stands a great chance of losing federal funding for road projects if levels can't be kept at a reasonable level. We are penalized for the sheer number of vehicles on the road and no doubt that many are large SUV type vehicles. Although the operators pay more gas tax by purchasing more gas, that extra revenue does nothing to help the underlying problem. Areas like Charlotte will find themselves in a great ordeal should federal funding be cut off for road projects, especially considering the burden already placed on NCDOT for road projects.

The point system I proposed above would help to solve both issues by semi-forcing folks to use more economical modes of transit and even mass transit but if you so choose to drive around your Hummer then you will pay to clean up the mess it leaves behind. This would force auto makers to do more for cleaning up our environment IMO, something that really isn't being done right now no matter how much marketing GM or Ford does.

[Captain Worley]

Of course that does nothing for another huge (maybe more so) problem which is pollution.

[Neo]

Back to the infrastructure. Did you know that one semi truck is equivalent to 150,00 cars in terms of damage to the roads? This is because the tires run 150psi, and the contact patches are so small.

This is going to be an even harder problem to solve as any cost driven up in this area would no doubt be passed on to the consumer in price of goods. Big trucks could certainly be designed better aerodynamically and could support several 'green' items like hybrid technologies and cleaner fuels. No one is pushing that industry because of potentially disastrous outcomes of doing so. There has to be better alternatives for the delivery of goods in the US.

[tracer1138]

I'm not sure I buy into the government making it easier to have a car. Between a portion of property taxes, a portion of state and federal income tax, and state and federal fuel taxes, I'd say car owners are funding both roads AND mass transit.

Also, people with heavy SUVs are penalized in that they buy more fuel, and thus pay more taxes. I'm really not sure any more penalties are needed there.

I still maintain that the majority of Americans would choose their car over any form of mass transit because it gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there.

[Captain Worley]

This is going to be an even harder problem to solve as any cost driven up in this area would no doubt be passed on to the consumer in price of goods. Big trucks could certainly be designed better aerodynamically and could support several 'green' items like hybrid technologies and cleaner fuels. No one is pushing that industry because of potentially disastrous outcomes of doing so. There has to be better alternatives for the delivery of goods in the US.

[krazeeboi]

Good points, traceer1138. And let's not even go practical here--like the fact that I could have less incidents on my record if I didn't have to drive everywhere.

[Captain Worley]

Even ignoring all that, we're still largely only paying for new construction instead of maintenance. People leave developed areas and move to areas of new construction then argue that there's nothing wrong with their roads so they don't see what all the fuss is about and continue to vote against maintenance based policy.

[ohioaninSC]

Yes, its a big problem, but one very few people want to raise. The highway engineers know the trucks are causing the problems, a huge portion of them at least, but the politicians won't address it because not only do the manufacturers have a lobby, but the drivers have a very powerful lobby. Plus the pols don't want to be responsible for the price in transport of goods.

Trucks have made big strides since the 70s in fuel mileage, but its been driven by the cost of fuel, not the government. I'm afraid the politicians are going to have to make some hard choices about trucking and its impact on the deterioration of the roads, but I bet they won't be brave enough to even raise the issue.

[neon9]

I'm not sure I buy into the government making it easier to have a car. Between a portion of property taxes, a portion of state and federal income tax, and state and federal fuel taxes, I'd say car owners are funding both roads AND mass transit.

Also, people with heavy SUVs are penalized in that they buy more fuel, and thus pay more taxes. I'm really not sure any more penalties are needed there.

I still maintain that the majority of Americans would choose their car over any form of mass transit because it gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there.

[Captain Worley]

^ Well, you can google the info just as well as I can, but trucks in the mid-70s got around 4mpg. Diesel was dirt cheap then, so no biggie. Not long after that, diesel prices skyrocketed. No the trucks get 6-7 mpg, which is a whopping percentage increase. Most was acheived through aerodynamics, but engine management has made huge strides since then.

As for the taxes, I never said fuel taxes covered them all. Its just one leg of a multi-legged stool. Reread what I posted.

Increasing taxes is not the answer. Proper spending is. I believe the pols are using our anxiety over this incident to reach further into our pockets.

[neon9]

^ Well, you can google the info just as well as I can, but trucks in the mid-70s got around 4mpg. Diesel was dirt cheap then, so no biggie. Not long after that, diesel prices skyrocketed. No the trucks get 6-7 mpg, which is a whopping percentage increase. Most was acheived through aerodynamics, but engine management has made huge strides since then.

As for the taxes, I never said fuel taxes covered them all. Its just one leg of a multi-legged stool. Reread what I posted.

Increasing taxes is not the answer. Proper spending is. I believe the pols are using our anxiety over this incident to reach further into our pockets.

[Captain Worley]

^ I think that right of ways for rail is really expensive to aquire, so that's why you don't see more market based goods being shipped that way. However, the big box stores are really concentrating on logistics a lot more now, so, if they're smart, they may be locating their distribution centers close to rail lines. Maybe they could even get spurs put in.

I've heard the rail system is just about maxed out. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that's be another reason that trucking is chosen over rail.

[neon9]

^ I think that right of ways for rail is really expensive to aquire, so that's why you don't see more market based goods being shipped that way. However, the big box stores are really concentrating on logistics a lot more now, so, if they're smart, they may be locating their distribution centers close to rail lines. Maybe they could even get spurs put in.

I've heard the rail system is just about maxed out. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that's be another reason that trucking is chosen over rail.

[Captain Worley]

True, clouydship, there's a lot of dark territory out there.

"But I would think rail needs much less R-O-W than a new highway or lane added to one. "

True, but the railroads are notoriously cheap.

[Spatula]

It's not just about costs. It's about how people want to live their lives. A lot of people aren't all that keen on living on top of one another. Many people become depressed when you are surrounded by concrete all the time and have no personal space.

[neon9]

True, clouydship, there's a lot of dark territory out there.

"But I would think rail needs much less R-O-W than a new highway or lane added to one. "

True, but the railroads are notoriously cheap.

[brresident]

That's actually not the case at all. For years and years now the city of New Orleans has been dealing with constant funding cuts to the levee system here. 40 years before Katrina, there were no levees. They weren't built until after 1965, when New Orleans flooded after Hurricane Betsy. Most of the levee system as it is today wasn't finished until 20 years later. Since then, especially in the last ~15 years, funding for improvements to the levees has been cut more times than I could even try to count. Was there corruption in the local and state government during that time? Sure there was. But for as long as I can remember, Louisiana and New Orleans have requested "x" amount of money for improvements to the New Orleans levees, and the feds allocate something that's not anywhere near what is needed.

[brresident]

Another infrastructure related question:

Anyone fly lately? I hate these delays. I'd take a train, but there isn't any that could get me where I need to be. American trains are slow and don't service enough areas.

I hope someone at Amtrack is reading this. Expand your reach, for crying out loud...and maybe put out more Acelas so our passenger trains can move faster where possible.

[NCB]

Yeah, levees were on Orleans area citizens minds for years...Give me a break... New Orleans is a party city. I've spent ten years of my life there. Everyone thought the pumps solved all the problems, and corruption is always overlooked (even encouraged) by the majority of Orleans Parish voters, and many voters statewide.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Are Interstate highways maintained by the state with money from the Federal Gov. and not the city? If that is the case, we should be looking at the state of Min. for the problem. We should not be concern what Minneapolis is building

Our problem here in NC is the state does not have money to do justice to our highway system. On I85 we have a bridge over the Yankin River which is 50 years old and out of date for today

[Snowguy716]

The really sad part about the 35W collapse is that Minnesota has better bridges than the national average, but in the past 8 years, the number of bridges in good condition has fallen from 61% to 53% because our governor and his Lt. governor who runs MnDOT has been doing infrastructure on the cheap.

This is compared to a national average of 43% of bridges being labeled as in "good" condition.

It is rather pointless to tack on tolls. They snarl up traffic and require more maintenance. It makes more sense to raise the gas tax as this would be a more secure revenue source as everybody who drives would be paying for the maintenance of roads and not just those that drive on the ones we decide to toll. The Lt. Governor came up with a figure of raising the gas tax 35 cents per gallon in order to get our bridges and roads into good working order. While 35 cents/gallon is too steep, I think it would be prudent to raise the tax 10 cents and tie the gas tax to inflation. This is what Democrats in the Minnesota legislature proposed, but the governor vetoed the transportation bill because he opposed tax increases. His tune has now changed that 13 people are dead and a major arterial bridge is lying in the river.

I think the state should be responsible for all road construction, but each local jurisdiction should be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. This way, we're not using property tax dollars to build county roads because the state dollars are drying up so the governor can claim he hasn't raised taxes (75 cent/pack of cigarettes 'health impact FEE' not withstanding)

It is not too much to ask to have good infrastructure in this nation to keep our economy humming along smoothly. We should not take the chance and damage our ability to get our products and consumers to the market place by playing politics and trying to apply theoretical political ideologies that do things like try and privatize roads or turn it into a user fee system. Our parents/grandparents paid to have good roads built and htere's no reason that we can't at least keep them well maintained. I get sick of watching our infrastructure crumble so the rich can have tax cuts, the middle class can get their tiny rebates in the mail, and we can spend another trillion fighting a war that has nothing to do with anything.

[dallasbrink]

You know i will admit it, im from Texas and i was at one point a hard core conservative, but since Bush took office and i have grown up, moved away from my parents and started thinking for my self, i have come to realize that those of us in our 20's are screwed. We will nave no social security, our country will be in debt and more then half the world will hate us. We need a president like Clinton in office again. He still laid down the hammer but he raised taxes just a little and got the nations debt down to the lowest it had been in almost 40 years. But in America, its not up to the national government to repair roads and bridges, this comes to the State governments to allocate there funds to fix these problems.

[Captain Worley]

Apparently pigeon dung may have played some role in the I-35 bridge collapse. Dried dung becomes a salt and accelerates corrosion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_...ollapse_pigeons