On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 12:11:35 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   > That still wouldn't have been enough, though, because the costs of steel   
   > and concrete have risen far faster than general inflation due to China's   
   > rapid industrialization over the same time period.   
      
   Further, when more land is required for any improvement, more money is needed   
   as land costs have shot up significantly in developed areas.   
      
   Also, safety and environmental standards have increased tremendously, so what   
   was adequate construction design 50 years is more expensive today to meet   
   current needs.   
      
      
   > The result is enormous cross-subsidies for truckers, and they have a   
   > very powerful lobby that will spend billions to keep that in place, so   
   > don't expect this to change any time soon.   
      
   The aviation industry also has great influence, and they're not keen on losing   
   any passengers to Amtrak, even though an enlarged Amtrak would have a neglible   
   effect on their operations.  However, their trade association frequently   
   castigates Amtrak as    
   being very detrimental to them.   
      
   Critics of rail transportation act as if they have powerful lobbyists when in   
   fact rail has extremely limited influence in state and federal legislatures.    
   Indeed, much work only was done because certain contractors wanted some   
   action, such as the    
   defense industry after Vietnam ended.  Boeing had a lot more influence than   
   say the St. Louis Car Co.   
      
      
   > Tolls aren't perfect, but they're better than a fuel tax.   
      
   A lot of folks object to tolls, and they also have an overhead in collection   
   and administration.  Pennsylvania wanted to toll I-80, with deep discounts for   
   local travellers, but there was extremely severe opposition and the proposal   
   failed. (The proposal    
   was bad in the first place, too).   
      
      
      
   > It works well for limited-access highways, which are by far the most   
   > expensive to construct and maintain.  Let local property taxes pay for   
   > the local surface roads.  No gas tax is needed for either.   
      
   While fuel taxes aren't perfect, as mentioned above, they still are somewhat   
   related to actual usage, while property taxes bear no relation at all.  With   
   fuel taxes, motorists can choose more efficient driving habits, a choice they   
   do not have at all    
   with property taxes.   
      
   Note in NJ county roads are funded through property taxes, while the same   
   class of roads in Pennsylvania are funded by fuel taxes.  Penna has higher   
   fuel taxes, but NJ has higher property taxes.     
      
   Sadly, politicians these days are terrified of any tax increase even though   
   they are necessary to pay for the services the public demands.   
      
   Some of the politicians' fear may not be justified.  For instance, the various   
   port authorities near NYC and Phila have raised their respective bridge tolls   
   to unreasonable heights, partly to pay for non-road projects.  There are   
   expose newspaper    
   articles of scandal and outcry, yet the tolls remain in place as do the   
   politicians who control those authorities.   
      
   For instance, one state governor personally intervened to eliminate employee   
   passes on the transit agencies, yet the governors were totally silent about   
   the toll increases.   
      
   NJ, which has nearly the lowest fuel tax in the country, desperately needs   
   more money to maintain its heavilly used roads.  It could raise the fuel tax.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)