Transit proposals in Congress threaten projects and jobs, critics say

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

^ You want to play "Devil's Advocate"? How many billions flow out of Wall Street in taxes to fund a highway in Kentucky or South Carolina? As for "reasonable costs"? The market determines that.

Then you should be in favor of devolution. Cut the Federal transit grants, cut the Highway Trust Fund, and reduce the Federal gas tax to a level that's just high enough to maintain the existing Interstate system. States would then be free to raise their own gas taxes to compensate, and they wouldn't need to share any of the money. Cities like LA, Denver, and Seattle have already realized that if they want to actually build the new transit lines they desperately need, they'll have to go it alone.

For true "inter-state" projects, states could form joint authorities like the Port Authority to fund and operate said infrastructure. But the highway network is done. It's not supposed to be the job of the Federal government to provide for transportation within and around cities, but to provide for movement between major cities and across state lines.

You're exactly right, the centralization of transportation funding means that everyone has to compromise, so New York doesn't get the subways it wants and rural areas get wasteful highways to nowhere that they then need to maintain. It doesn't work well for anybody.

If you live in a donor state, then you should be glad to reap the benefits of all the tax money you pay. If you live in a recipient state, you've been mooching off the rest of us so your in-state taxes can remain unsustainably low.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

^ You want to play "Devil's Advocate"? How many billions flow out of Wall Street in taxes to fund a highway in Kentucky or South Carolina?

Not much since the highway trust fund is paid for by the gas tax and people living in Manhattan don't use much gas..

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

As for "reasonable costs"? The market determines that.

In an ideal world that might be true, but this world isn't quite that black and white. Plus, the market really DOESN'T determine it in a state like New York that isn't a right to work state. The unions intentionally reduce the supply of skilled labor in order to get wages far higher than pure market forces would create.

Originally Posted by ardecila

You're exactly right, the centralization of transportation funding means that everyone has to compromise.

This right here is the problem. It used to be that the two parties would compromise to get things done. The states with dense cities want mass transit and the rural/suburban states want roads. What SHOULD happen is that they split the money in half. Unfortunately these days what actually happens is nobody gets anything. So the low density places like Houston and Atlanta start building tons of toll roads because they can't get Congress to pay for their roads and the high density places like NYC build subways but go far into debt to do so. There's no winners here until we raise the gas tax big time and also do something about the wastefulness of some of these projects (4 Billion dollar PATH station anyone?).

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Not much since the highway trust fund is paid for by the gas tax and people living in Manhattan don't use much gas..

Wrong. The gas tax pays for less than half of the costs to build and maintain highways. The highway transit fund has needed bailouts from the general fund of $7B-$8B for much of the past decade. It is even worse at the state and local level, where an assortment of property and sales taxes are often used to build and maintain local roads.

[M II A II R II K]

And that the gas tax hasn't increased in over 20 years.

[Jasonhouse]

And there's the GOP congress we've all come to expect nothing but malfeasance from.

http://tbo.com/ap/house-gop-approves...rash-20150513/

[M II A II R II K]

I guess less service means less accidents.

[Jasonhouse]

^I wonder when we can expect them to apply the same logic to driving?

haha

[M II A II R II K]

But even roads and bridges aren't off the hook either.

[munchymunch]

Rail's in the U.S. are a joke compared to everywhere else in the modern world...

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

But even roads and bridges aren't off the hook either.

they are not to smart, they still think the Obamacare Heath care plan
is going to ruin this country.

[M II A II R II K]

And the Amtrak train was speeding at 100MPH, which is regular speed anywhere else.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

And the Amtrak train was speeding at 100MPH, which is regular speed anywhere else.

It's the regular speed in many places on the North East Corridor, just not around that curve. Even high speed rail trains have to slow down when they get into a city. It definitely seems like a very sharp curve, but good luck getting approval in the US to tear down homes and businesses in order to straighten a curve out.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It's clearly in the self-interest of politicians from places like Kentucky and South Carolina to be against mass transit. These states aren't getting any of that money so why SHOULD they support it?

because those are red taker states, and they suck up more federal money than they return in taxes.
the only red states that actually make money are the resource extraction states, ie petrol states, which can be compared to russia.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

This right here is the problem. It used to be that the two parties would compromise to get things done. The states with dense cities want mass transit and the rural/suburban states want roads. What SHOULD happen is that they split the money in half. Unfortunately these days what actually happens is nobody gets anything. So the low density places like Houston and Atlanta start building tons of toll roads because they can't get Congress to pay for their roads and the high density places like NYC build subways but go far into debt to do so. There's no winners here until we raise the gas tax big time and also do something about the wastefulness of some of these projects (4 Billion dollar PATH station anyone?).

the rural/suburban states are TAKERS.
they dont make ANY money.
they suck up money from the cities.
under your plan, they should be paying the cities a stipend.

[Jasonhouse]

^That's why they want to split the money in half. That's a net subsidy for suburban areas in most metros.


We have that problem in Tampa pretty bad, with the county quite literally siphoning money out of the city, to pay for badly planned suburban areas that lack a sufficient tax base to pay their own bills at current tax rates.

[M II A II R II K]

Obama threatens to veto GOP spending bill for transportation, housing

Read More: http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...n-housing-bill

.....

The White House said Tuesday that Obama would reject the measure, which is known as THUD, on the grounds that it underfunds federal transportation and housing programs, and includes a number of policy riders involving travel restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba, and truck driver scheduling.

- “The bill freezes or cuts critical investment in transportation that creates jobs, helps to grow the economy, and improves America's roads, bridges, transit infrastructure, and aviation systems, benefiting towns and cities across the United States, as well as investments in ending homelessness, strengthening communities, and providing rental housing assistance for poor and vulnerable families,” the White House said in a policy statement.

- Truck safety groups have accused GOP lawmakers of using the appropriations process to undo a series of trucking regulations they say makes U.S. roads safer, including limits on the length and weight of trucks. Trucking companies have opposed these limits for years.

- The White House said Tuesday it also has objections to the measure’s provisions that are related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. --- “At a time when only one in four families who are eligible for housing assistance actually receives it, the bill would set back efforts to end homelessness and shortchange housing support for very low-income households, including families with children, the elderly, and the disabled,” the policy statement said.

- “The bill also reduces funding for other vulnerable populations, such as low-income children at risk of lead poisoning, and for programs that invest in public housing to revitalize distressed communities,” the statement continued. “Furthermore, the legislation includes highly objectionable provisions, including provisions that would restrict travel to Cuba, undercut public safety, and limit state and local choices to enhance passenger rail.”

.....

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Then you should be in favor of devolution. Cut the Federal transit grants, cut the Highway Trust Fund, and reduce the Federal gas tax to a level that's just high enough to maintain the existing Interstate system. States would then be free to raise their own gas taxes to compensate, and they wouldn't need to share any of the money. Cities like LA, Denver, and Seattle have already realized that if they want to actually build the new transit lines they desperately need, they'll have to go it alone.

I mostly agree with your overall premise, but "go it alone" is a stretch in light of the significant Federal funding going into these projects. More like, "drastically increase the local funding share to 50-60%."

Committed Sec 5309 Funding Amount for:
LA Westside Subway Section 1 - $1.25bn
LA Regional Connector - $670m
Denver Eagle Commuter Rail - $1.03bn

[ardecila]

^ Point taken, although LA is now pushing "Measure R2" specifically to reduce their dependence on Federal funding. Federal levels of support for New Starts are too paltry to support the transit buildout LA has planned over the next 30 years.

[M II A II R II K]

Democrats steer toward highway funding cliff

Read More: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ff-118605.html

Democrats are threatening an aggressive confrontation with Republicans over federal highway money, foreshadowing yet another round of brinkmanship with the GOP and raising the specter of a temporary shutdown of transportation construction sites nationwide.

- House and Senate Democrats are weighing a hard-line strategy that would force Republicans to stumble through a series of painful short-term highway extensions if they don’t fix the program’s long-term funding woes, with the Highway Trust Fund slated to run out of money after July 31. --- Democrats have long insisted that Congress needs to put the highway fund on firm financial footing for years to come, but bipartisan antipathy to new taxes has produced a series of stopgaps and patches under the leadership of both parties.

- “I think it’s horrible that they’re even thinking about the short-term extension,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in an interview. “I think it’s ridiculous.” --- Unless Republicans can come up with tens of billions of dollars in new tax money or spending cuts, the GOP could be forced to acquiesce to Democratic demands or risk a shutdown of infrastructure projects in the middle of the summer construction season. --- Still, the strategy could also blow up in Democrats’ faces, as the GOP is sure to paint them as obstructionists, particularly if a shutdown comes to pass in July.

- The goal, Democratic sources said, is to expose the GOP’s lack of planning ahead of the July deadline and pressure them to come up with as much as $90 billion for a six-year transportation bill just at flat funding levels, a near impossibility without politically painful tax increases. The most aggressive tactic, raised by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) at a private bicameral leadership meeting Tuesday, would have Democrats filibuster any transportation funding extension lasting longer than 30 days.

- Democrats have not yet settled on how much rope they are willing to give Republicans, but they believe they can score political points hammering the GOP over legislation that supports thousands of American jobs. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to take the lead in the campaign, and he hopes to eventually enlist influential transportation lobbying groups to join Democrats’ push. But it’s Durbin who’s suggesting the toughest tack: requiring Republicans to come up with either tens of billions for a long-term bill or approximately $2 billion every month to avoid a construction shutdown.

.....