Should we rebuild our bridges or spend the money elsewhere?

You're right there.

You can't burn oil you don't have, but you can spend money you don't have.

We can give it to people who work or pay people who don't....and we think both workers and idlers have a right to eat and live in relative comfort. If both types just get play money, who's at least made a contribution to their community and deserves to be able to use it? One type would have a cause to gripe but guess which one tends to do the most griping?

At one time in history it was sufficient enough to build pyramid tombs to our leaders or temples to a pantheon of deities. These projects kept a population occupied and fed as well as ensuring the sun circled the planet for at least one more day!

Today we kinda expect public projects to be a bit more practical. The dilemma is, indeed, what may be considered a wise investment in the future. We complain when we see pork barrel projects being funded... until it is our turn to chew on pork rinds! Suddenly, that bridge to nowhere seems eminently reasonable. Let's face the fact that highway spending by the fed has been a major economic tool but the question is should we keep spending the money on the same old technology? Is that technology going to be practical 50 years from now? A hundred Years?

advancements will be slow under our system but I don't know what would make it better. Suppose you developed a radical new compound that would dramatically increase tire life and safety. It would reduce rolling friction to save energy but have good adhesion in all kinds of weather, be long lasting and almost blowout proof. But suppose it didn't work that well on current asphalt or concrete formulas used on our highways. Your test track that validated your findings was constructed using a proprietary formulation. As well, this surface didn't improve performance...or perhaps was worse when tires using current technologies ran on it. Technologies have inter-dependencies with other technologies...old, current and upcoming. What technology developed today can we say will even have a useful life of 50 to 100 years?

A few years back I was on our church council. It was determined that we needed a new sign in the front that included a way to change the weekly schedule that services were held. Our pastor wanted to do something radically different and technology advanced while many of us just wanted a regular sign with an easy way to change the schedule or announce special events. Our pastor wanted a computer operated sign with scrolling messages. It was going to be expensive. Arghh! My comments that computers have a short life expectancy compared to stone and wood. The reply was that computers are easy to replace. But, guess what? The system ran under DOS and used an LED array. DOS wasn't going to be around in 50 years and neither will these LED displays that the sign was custom designed to accommodate. He got the sign he wanted and guess what?.......ZAAPPPP!!!!....... Yep. A lightning bolt took it all out. No more DOS computers and compatible LED arrays to be found and too expensive anyway.

Hey Grim, guess what else? I completely forgot where I was going with this.

... to Angeline. My post came out schizophrenic sounding because I lost track of what I was saying.

I kind of got what you were saying. Technology offers increased efficiency but at what cost? And what problems may arise from integrating with obsolete systems like incompatible roads, etc?

We could move to a mag/lev transportation system but that requires fixed tracks and takes away mobility away from the main trunk lines. Still, is that what we should look to? A fixed, long distance transportation system supplemented by short range personal transport?

I guess the question comes down to the short and long term future of current propulsion technology. Namely, the internal combustion engine. How we deal with an alternative propulsion method is probably the determining factor in the whole future of personal and mass transit.

While it's not feasible to limit the way this thread goes, my intension for the post was to explore what people knew about the technology and not the socio-economic modeling of the once and future railroad baron.

I guess what I'm wondering when it comes to the "entrepreneurship" aspects is, if there is some up and coming whiz kid a la' **** Rutan of mass transit.

Again however, I think part of the equation is the gas combustion engine/single person transport system which has evolved over the last 100 years in the US... can it be sustained for another 100 years? Should it?

I am of a generation where we take for granted that most highways offer cost free access to roads as opposed to the day when pay per ride turnpikes were more common.

I wonder if the maintenance and reconstruction cost solution, lies with a toll booth at either end of every bridge in america? I would almost guarantee that the actual construction costs for road maintenance would go down in such a scenario simply because the road's users would demand more accountability from work crews and contractors.

The truth as I see it is that the tax payer subsidizes the use of the transportation and fuel supply systems in the US more than we are aware of. A conservative driver who makes fewer trips and drives a more fuel efficient vehicle still pays taxes for roads worn out by commercial traffic... and pays fuel costs that are based on the supply and demand market generated by fuel guzzling vehicles.

Over all, I could almost favor dropping all flat lined fuel taxes and instead devise an incremental tax scale based on fuel usage. The more fuel an individual uses, the higher percentage their taxes would be... the less fuel used, the lower the percentage would be. Thus, if you want to drive a car that gets 5 miles per gallon, then you go right ahead, but you should pay a higher price for your fuel, instead of making me subsidize the market price because the gas guzzler increased the "demand" side of the supply and demand equation.

TANSTAAFL is a term bandied about by many free marketeers when it comes to explaining free market costs, but the reality is that the government subsidizes many business designs simply by paying for the bulk of transportation systems upkeep with tax payer money. Unfortunately, the government has proven again and again that it is not the best choice for maximizing results versus cost. Maybe it is time to return the roads and bridges to private interests who will make sure those who use the roads pay for the upkeep, without government subsidy nor inefficiency either.

I've been over a few toll roads in my time and recall one being opened in a neighboring state in the 1970's. There is some talk around here for one.

Were, and are, toll roads built by a group of private investors or by the sale of bonds to anyone? Grim, I hostly don't know how that works.

I've heard of toll roads being "paid for" after a number of years, so become free.

Do the toll collections pay for the building of those roadways alone, or do they also pay for their maintenance?

When they are "Paid for", who takes over the maintenance?

Or, are there now, or some proposed, that will remain toll roads regardless of time?

Thanks!

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

He might know about the turnpike. Originally it had a booth in Charleston and one in....was it Princeton? It was 88 miles from top to bottom and cost $2.50 travel. As well, it was 2 lanes with the exception of some of the steeper hills which had a truck passing lane. The speed limit was 60 mph. When you got on the pike, you got a card with the time was stamped on it. If you arrived at the other end in under 88 minutes, that's how they knew you were speeding and you get to help with the building and maintenance costs. A restaurant and souvenir shop was conveniently located about 1/2 way so you could slow down and get legal again...and spend more money. The last time we traveled, they'd added a couple toll booths along the way. It had been widened to 2 lanes both north and south and the tolls were up a little. I think it was $3.75 for the full trip. I thought the WVa TP was to have had an ending time for the toll collection. But, like with any tax, that never happens. It's a nice scenic drive in the Fall thought and worth the 3 bucks & 6 bits.

The old 2 lane road was a rather scary trip during the winter (with snow on the road).

For a short history...

http://www.wvculture.org/HiStory/wvhs1121.html

and for photographs...

http://www.wvturnpike.com/HISTORY_PHOTO_GALLERY/HISTORY_1.html

but way off in the distance and higher up than the bypass. I also remember the Beckley area restaurant facility to be known as The Glass House. I was pre-teen when we first went down to NC via the pike. It was, as you say, scary even without snow but a darn site better than the switchbacks on Route 21.

Toll roads were the land locked version of canals but appear to never have been as profitable. The hey day of turnpikes appeared to be during the 19th century. Makes sense if you think about the industrial revolution emboldening groups of investors determined to take advantage of trains but not wanting to invest in the heavier equipment a train system entailed.

Private turnpikes were business corporations that built and maintained a road for the right to collect fees from travelers.2 Accounts of the nineteenth-century transportation revolution often treat turnpikes as merely a prelude to more important improvements such as canals and railroads. Turnpikes, however, left important social and political imprints on the communities that debated and supported them. Although turnpikes rarely paid dividends or other forms of direct profit, they nevertheless attracted enough capital to expand both the coverage and quality of the U. S. road system. Turnpikes demonstrated how nineteenth-century Americans integrated elements of the modern corporation ? with its emphasis on profit-taking residual claimants ? with non-pecuniary motivations such as use and esteem.

Private road building came and went in waves throughout the nineteenth century and across the country, with between 2,500 and 3,200 companies successfully financing, building, and operating their toll road. There were three especially important episodes of toll road construction: the turnpike era of the eastern states 1792 to 1845; the plank road boom 1847 to 1853; and the toll road of the far West 1850 to 1902.

What becomes of the modern turnpike when it is paid off is a good question. I have seen toll highways that were opened up but I have also seen some roads rebuilt and remain a toll road (such as the WV turnpike).

Here is the wiki listing for turnpikes in the US.

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

It is different from the reference I quoted above. All in all this is some interesting stuff and I'm glad you motivated me to look it up.

I appreciate your taking the time to do the research.

I'm saving the links so that I can refer to them at a later time, as well.

When I lived in KY, a past governor was "Happy" Chandler. (He later became Baseball Commissioner.) He lived in Versailles, and had one of the first 4 lane highways built from Louisville to Versailles. It was marked with mile post signs, so was considered a "speedometer check" highway.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

Say it !! You know you want to!!

"Reverse Robin Hood", "Tax cuts for the rich"

the post to be deleted?

Reminding someone that they had made the same ERROR previously and had been linked to accurate info so they wouldn't REPEAT THE ERROR certainly isn't a ToS violation nor is it such to call attention to the FACT that the provided link was never made use of (typical) as indicated by a REPEAT of the erroneous "information" regarding "taxes" and "deficit reduction". After all, we do not want FALSE information disseminated as some people believe it rather than check up on it while a direct link allows the actual FACTS to be ready to hand.

Again, here is the appropriate link that PROVES your comment to be far less than factual.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/fifahiwy/fifahi05.htm

99% is a FRACTION of 100% !!!!!! Ain't that something !!

Also, Until October 1, 1998, the securities were interest-bearing and interest from the securities was credited to the fund. Since that time, the HTF balance has been invested in non-interest-bearing securities

Does that mean we have LESS monies for infrastructure???
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998

I predict a particularly rapid rebuilding project...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Why would that be a surprise?

Dave, remember what happened to the I-10 "Twin-Span" Bridge with hurricane Katrina? It was repaired in short order because it was a main transportation artery. The Minneapolis bridge in also a main transportation artery, so I would think that its repair would start as fast as possible. If it was, you may see some sort of a "plot" in the case of speed to repair it, but I don't.