Read the whole thing here.
Nearly seven months after a highway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, a federal commission put a jaw-dropping price tag on starting to attend to America’s crumbling foundations: $225 billion a year for the next 50 years just to maintain and upgrade surface transportation.
0 responses to “NY Times Editorializes for Infrastructure Spending”
I would add to that list: …and construct a new nationwide high speed rail system, suitable for both freight and passenger rail movements at between 200 and 300mph cruising speeds (keeping up with the best existing HSR technology in the world).
This would seem to be absolutely essential to allowing our nation to remain competitive in the world economy as fuel prices continue to rise, and rise, and rise. That, and fix the nation’s health care system… but that’s not a topic suitable for this particular blog.
Oh — and congratulations, Earl, for getting such good press in the NYT!!!
Easy way to do this — not politically easy, but conceptually easy — a $2.00 gas tax, imposed at the rate of an extra dime per year for 20 years, starting one year after the law goes into effect. That will encourage conservation and the shift to fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, while raising money in the short run. One half of the projected first decade revenue stream could be bonded to create an immediately available pot of cash for infrastructure repair and improvement.
Better yet cut back on the mushrooming government and decades of mission creep.
We don’t need many bureaus, services and programs at all levels.
Metro, PDC, many State programs, countless fed agencies like the US debt of Ed.
Halt all light rail, streetcars and TOD schemes locally and clean house in many agencies.
“Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, has been pushing for a real national infrastructure plan”
But has yet to provide a reality check whereby the users of streetcars, transit and bicycle infrastructure must start directly paying considerably higher fares and/or user fees that quintessentially reflect the true costs of building and providing the services received. Without such a user based financing plan, all his rhetorical propaganda is simply hot air.
Woah, the anti-government libertarians really came out of the woodwork for this one! Great ideas, guys — can I see the fiscal impact statement that shows how your proposals will produce $250 billion a year in revenue?
No?
Maybe that’s because it’s actually you guys who are full of hot air?
I thought so.
When gas is $6 a gallon, let’s see what your opinion is of mass transit… and then again at $10 a gallon.
Nah, why would they want to build new bridges:
WHEN THEY CAN HAVE A WAR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE INSTEAD?
Hell, the cost of Iraq woulda paid for all the new bridges and lots of new highways, and plenty of streetcars running on every street in porltland.
BUT NO, lets waste our tax dollars on wars against innocents.
THIS IS AMERIKA GODDAMIT!
**God bless amerika, and nobody else**
Garlynn,
Just where do you think Federal funding for streetcars, new busses, light rail and bicycle infrastructure comes from? Why the Federal Highway Trust Fund where it is raided and siphoned off from being used for roadways. And who do you think pays into the Federal Highway Trust Fund? Certainly not people using transit or freeloading bicyclists. It is only the drivers of motor vehicles that by using their vehicles contribute to the fund from the Federal tax on motor fuels. Therefore, if transit facilities become overwhelmed because gasoline is so high priced whereby only a well to do privileged few can afford to buy fuel in any quantities, then the federal subsidies for transit and bicycle infrastructure dry up, and the cost of ALL consumer goods including basic food supplies will drastically increase in price.
Furthermore, transit can not be operated, new equipment can not be purchased and infrastructure can not be built with just the “hot air” Blumenhauer and others propagate. Consequently, for alternative forms of transport to be at all sustainable they also must be financially self sustainable paid for by the users; and that requires transit users and bicyclists “directly paying considerably higher fares and/or user fees that quintessentially reflect the true costs of building and providing the services received” – a simple reality check that politicians whom want to control the lifestyles and mobility choices of the people refuse to recognize.
“just where do you think Federal funding for streetcars, new busses, light rail and bicycle infrastructure comes from? ”
yep, this is amerika, better to use our tax dollars to wage wars in foreign lands than get new buses,streetcars, and bike lanes.
right terry!
Imagine how much we could spend on infrastructure if we ended the mortgage interest deduction, or at least capped the deduction at the US Median home value.
We’re talking, TRILLIONS every year simply given away to the affluent homeowners in this country.
“We’re talking, TRILLIONS every year simply given away to the affluent homeowners in this country.”
~~~~god bless amerika~~~~~~~~
(and nobody else)
ps:of course your proposal would devastate the housing sector
You mean the housing industry that for for the past 70 years has been propped up by government subsidies?
Why is it that once you give these greedy homeowners a handout, they start thinking they are entitled? The program was intended to help the industry in hard times, now us hardworking Americans are left footing the bill.
—-
All that’s a parody. To these uber-free-market proponents the frequent this board: STFU. If you don’t like paying taxes so other folks can ride a (slow) train to work, quit taking your mortgage interest deduction. Pay back what you’ve already taken. Pay back your parents share. Consider what life would have been like for you if you parents hadn’t been able to buy a house.
Then complain.
spending on infrastructure (including school construction) would do a lot more to stimulate the economy and build for the future than giving a “tax rebate” intended for consumers to go shopping for cheap chinese made goods. those who really need $200 and would spend it when they otherwise wouldnt have are probably living paycheck to paycheck and likely arent paying much or any in taxes. everyone else will most likely save it or use it to start to pay down their huge debt. plus wasnt it overspending that got us in this whole financial crisis to begin with, nothing like taking on more debt to solve a debt crisis.