The Interstate Highway System was started

[MineralMan]

as a military transport route. That has changed dramatically, but the cross-country nature of the Interstates still plays a role. We aren't seeing cross-country military convoys these days, but cross-country trucking is a big deal. From its military beginnings, it has become an economic transportation system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

[FarCenter]

1. What's good for General Motors is good for the country

"Engine Charlie" Wilson, Secretary of Defense, former CEO of General Motors.

Wilson's nomination sparked a controversy that erupted during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, based on his large stockholdings in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at the time at more than $2.5 million, Wilson agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation

"because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa".

This statement has frequently been misquoted as "What's good for General Motors is good for the country". Although Wilson tried for years to correct the misquote, he was reported at the time of his retirement in 1957 to have accepted the popular impression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Erwin_Wilson

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. It was created for military necessity and created huge economic growth.

So now it's broke. What do do? We couldn't possibly ask business or the military to pay for it.

That leaves the group that no one gives a shit about - citizens.

[B2G]

3. "It's broke" is a little dramatic.

As asked on another thread, isn't this what a portion of our federal taxes is supposed to go towards?

And where exactly will the military get money to pay for it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. They don't need to "get" the money, they already have it.

The military budget is $700 billion annually. The collective spending by the states to maintain the Interstate system is $25 billion annually.

[B2G]

8. I'd be all for cutting foreign aid to pay for it.

As long as it's not on TOP of what's being spent today. Because you know where that would come from. The military would just be the middle man.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Foreign aid spending is trivial.

Foreign harm is where the money is at.

[B2G]

33. 32 billion a year is trivial?? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. The economic growth would have happened anyway

the US was the only major industrial power left standing at the end of WWII and in 1950 produced half of the world's oil (the equivalent of Saudi Arabia plus Russia plus Venezuela plus Mexico plus the US plus the North Sea, today). The interstates are responsible more than anything else for sprawl and unsustainable development practices (unsustainable because the car-centred transport model they're built for is increasingly unviable. If financing infrastructure repair through making interstate highways toll roads leads to a turn away from suburban-focused sprawl ad a development model and fosters investment in public transit alternatives it's only a good thing.

[B2G]

6. How??

How will this address urban sprawl and foster public transportation?

The primary function of interstates is to provide INTERSTATE transportation. Public transportation is a completely separate issue.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. By creating popular demand and political will for alternatives

which hasn't really been there.

[B2G]

11. There is no alternative to traveling to another state or

even a city 100 miles away without an interstate.

Again, it has nothing to do with public transportation or urban sprawl.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, not quickly, anyhow. But there are a number of cross-country routes

one can use and avoid Interstate highways altogether. It will take you a lot longer to make the trip, but it can be done. It's my preferred way to travel by car. In fact, I often travel with no fixed destination, but with a general direction, and use state highways as my routes. It's great if you have time and no need to get to a particular place by a particular time.

A good road atlas will make all of those routes clear, wherever you are going. It's great fun, and a very relaxed way to travel, as long as you don't need to go anywhere in particular as fast as possible.

[GeorgeGist]

24. We use to have trains ...

that carried people from state to state.

[B2G]

32. We also used to have horses and buggies. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. nonsense.

http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2.pdf

• Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S. productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31 percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S. productivity growth in the 1980s.

[MineralMan]

7. In the end, we all pay for it, one way or another.

We fund the military, and business is funded by us, as well. It's all a wash, in the end. Every time you go into a store and buy something, you're paying for transportation of the goods in that store, whatever they are. It all goes on a truck at some point, and that truck will run on the Interstate system, even around urban areas.

We, the people, end up paying for it all, one way or another.

[B2G]

12. Yep, you got it. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. The United States lost, and by "lost" I mean "misplaced" as much money in Iraq

as the collective amount that states spend to maintain the interstate highways.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse? The military budget has enough to pay for highways.

If the military industrial complex is going to erect checkpoints on the highways they should at least foot the bill.

[MineralMan]

15. The military industrial complex also gets its money from us.

We pay for everything, I'm afraid, including that lost money in Iraq. Whoever pays, we pay. That seems to get lost, somehow, in these discussions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. I don't think I'm lost.

Of the $1000 I gave the military this year, I ask that $35 be spent on the highway system for whom it was built.

Fuck tolls.

[think]

28. We spend a ridiculous amount of money on military /nt

[Sissyk]

13. Not only that,

but something like 25 states now have toll roads of one sort or another.

Toll roads, historically, were built by states to CONNECT different Interstates from east to west for shipping and to save mileage and time. Each state was responsible for the cost of these, not the Federal Highway Fund. Historically, once the bond was covered, the cost paid back to the low bid producer, the toll roads were done away with. Still, it is a state function, not federal.

The Federal Highway Fund only makes up a portion of the funds needed to build an elaborate roadway with structures. The state must have the remaining funds available and approved before the job can even be put out for bidding.

Again, the Federal Highway Fund is only used as a portion of the funds for each state, and it must be a state route or an Interstate. Bypasses, turnpikes, etc. are fully funded by the state.

All President Obama is saying is that his four year budget will not cover the needs of all the Interstates and State Routes in the country. IF states would like, they can utilize toll roads to cover the remaining cost.

[Laelth]

17. IF that's what the President is saying, fine.

I consider that entirely reasonable.

I suppose I need to find and read his actual statement on this subject.



-Laelth

[Sissyk]

19. Here is a part of an article I found interesting.

Obama proposes to pay for the plan through a massive infusion of funds he envisions being created by corporate tax reforms. That new revenue that would augment the rapidly dwindling Highway Trust Fund, which gets most of its money from the federal gas tax.


The budget document released Tuesday fleshed out his vision. It emphasizes a fix-it-first approach that would give funding priority to salvaging existing roads, bridges and transit systems rather than expanding their network.

From here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/03/04/transportation-budget-seeks-revenue-for-rapidly-dwindling-highway-fund/

Also, read the article that started this "up in arms" postings today (from dixiegrrrl's thread). I don't think anyone really read it. Open the door for states is not the same thing as saying Obama is privatizing our roadways. lol!

[Laelth]

20. I have to recant.

Even if that's what the President is saying, it is not fine. Here's what's actually being proposed:

The proposal, contained in a four-year, $302 billion White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/white-house-opens-door-to-tolls-on-interstate-highways-removing-long-standing-prohibition/2014/04/29/5d2b9f30-cfac-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop

This proposal is incredibly tone-deaf and short-sighted. I can see it now. Red state governors will hand out sweetheart construction and management deals to their cronies to build and manage the toll booths (in exchange for contributions, of course). Then they will cut taxes on the rich and businesses again (thanks to all the new revenue), and then they will blame Obama and the Democrats for the increased taxes and irritation created by the new toll booths. Voters in red states will lap up these arguments, and Democrats will suffer at the polls in vast areas of the country where people are not accustomed to paying these tolls.

No. On second thought, this is a colossally bad idea. I hope it dies quickly.

-Laelth

[Sissyk]

27. I understand what you are saying, Laelth.

Do me a favor. Read this White House fact sheet and help me find where this statement came from.

The proposal, contained in a four-year, $302 billion White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

I couldn't find it. Therefore, I took it as the WP talking about something they really didn't understand. But, I may be blind and couldn't see it in the proposal.

[Laelth]

29. Did you mean to give me a link?

I actually went to whitehouse.gov to find a fact sheet on this. What I found may not have been what you wanted me to read. I'd love to take a look at what the White House has said publicly on this matter. Here's the fact sheet from Feb. 26:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/26/fact-sheet-president-obama-lays-out-vision-21st-century-transportation-i

I assume something has changed recently, specifically the proposal to allow states to erect toll booths where they could not previously, but I am not certain about that. And it is certainly possible that the WaPo got it wrong ... unlikely, but possible.

-Laelth

[Sissyk]

30. Yes, that was what I intended to link to.

Thank you! I was in a hurry at that point and failed to post it.

I can not find anything on the web except that fact sheet that shows the President's proposal, or additional comments related to tolls (except for Alex Jones), so I guess we have to wait and see what comes before Congress.

Thanks for the conversation, Laelth!

[Laelth]

31. Thank you.

And, don't get me wrong. There are lots of things I like in that proposal--especially the money for light rail. My own home, Macon, has already studied it, is acquiring right-of-way, and will be near the top of the list for some of that money. Our leadership really wants a light rail system here, and so do I.

That said, I still see no good reason to change Federal policy regarding tolls on the interstates, but, as you rightly note, nothing is clear at the moment. We shall have to wait and see.



-Laelth

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. I see a military advantage to single-payer health care ...

... think Lindsey Graham will take that bait?

[MineralMan]

22. Send him an email. I have no idea.

[AverageJoe90]

25. Umm.....not quite entirely.

Yes, no doubt that the military played it's role(and a rather significant one), but it was actually a majority civilian project more than anything else. Just thought I'd set the record straight.

[pinto]

26. Yeah, civilian firms built it under subcontract with the feds. It was a federal project, iirc.

Eisenhower was the lead promoter. And it was likely a big job generator. Repubs like him are extinct.