Re: Reason Foundation finds improving traffic congestion improves economy

"rshersh@xxxxxxxxx" <rshersh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 3:59 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:46 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
George Conklin wrote:
"Rich Piehl" <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

A government that CAN'T AFFORD to do health care.  A government that
can't control it's own spending.  \

   A oft-repeated lie.  All other industrialized nations have solved this
problem.  If government does control its own spending, you are going say,
"Killing Grandma."

I'm not going to say that.

In case you haven't following there have to be overall steps to make
intelligent choices in the overall government budget.  Right now the
solution for everything is to throw trillions of dollars  at it while
there have been no serious attempts to review the overall budget; no
serious attempts to actually reduce spending in any other area.

should we be reducing spending on roads? why? why not?

I think the funding schedules need to be changed, and states given
more flexibility in what they do with the Federal money.  If ND has no
need to build new roads, then that money should go to states that have
a need.  Some states are experiencing population growth rates that are
far outstripping their ability to keep up with the demand for more
lanes, while others are showing population decreases and a drop in
road demand.  The highway funding needs to be depoliticized (not that
that will ever happen, but something needs to be done on those lines).

Similarly, states should be able to move money from one category of
road construction to another; bridge replacement to interstate
maintenance, surface transportation to bridge replacement, etc, etc.
They do not have that ability right now.

it is indeed all about priorities. When we decided to go into Iraq -
we were committing trillions of dollars of budget to that effort that
we did not have.

but no complaints from the folks complaining now...  no tea parties..
no town halls.. no talk of "death" panels though.. indeed sending
young folks overseas to die for a lie.. is also making decisions about
people dying... and for those who didn't die but got maimed ..life
long medical care that also was not in the budget.

we have what boils down to double standards over what we think it is
okay to go into a hole over...   the expressed thought that we cannot
afford something apparently goes right out the window if we think it
is important enough...

I agree 100%.  Anyone who claims that our healthcare situation in this
country right now is acceptable is either filthy rich or has their
head in the sand.  Same with highway construction; we need massive
infusions of dollars into a nationwide reconstruction/maintenance
program for our roads and bridges.  Claiming "the money isn't there"
and talking about "public/private investments" are dancing around the
subject, unless you want a return to the days when nearly every bridge
had a toll on it, that is.  


umm, the way it works unfortunately is ND and SD get a certain amount
and they will FIND something to do with it

Yes I know that; all states do this. I'd like to see it changed so
that instead of the FHWA sending money and the states spending it,
that the states provide a funding request based on projects and the
FHWA agrees to fund a certain number of them, based on categories such
as need, safety, capacity, etc.

Categories such as bridge replacement, safety and pavement
rehabilitation/maintenance would get highest priority and require the
lowest level of 'need test'.

Adding lanes would require a higher level of proof for need, such as
current/projected level of service, impacts, etc.

New location projects would require the highest level of proof,
including all the lower levels plus future traffic usage, cost/mile,
impacts to both public and environment, level of support, etc.

Basically, the states would have to justify and prioritize their 'wish
list' and present it to FHWA for funding. Once funding is acquired,
no changes can be made to the scope of the work without triggering the
approval process all over again. This would keep the 'foot in the
door' tactic from being used to get a project approved as a safety
issue and then morph into a lane addition project. In return, FHWA
would guarantee the money would be made available once the project was
ready for construction. The money would be 'locked in' for that
particular project and only the usual inflationary/contingency funding
increases would be allowed without triggering the review process
again. If a state wanted to build a project without FHWA funding,
they would have the option to do so just as they do now.

At the least this would force states to make a lot more public how
projects get selected for funding over others. Right now the process
is so hidden in back rooms and 'good old boy politics' that there's a
lot of distrust in the public about anything the state proposes.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reason Foundation finds improving traffic congestion improves economy
    ... can't control it's own spending. ... maintenance, surface transportation to bridge replacement, etc, etc. ... that the states provide a funding request based on projects and the ... FHWA agrees to fund a certain number of them, ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: OT you wont believe this
    ... programs should not be things that my tax money should be spent on. ... You don't think governments should be doing or funding any research into ... Why do you think the government should be spending money on this? ... goes on should be kicked back to the government for study or approval. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: What waste exist in the fiscal stimulus plan
    ... for your buck, when that spending is all borrowed money, is spending that ... Building new schools, while it may be a good thing to do, ... Because the goal should be to create permanent jobs, ... Spending money on heathcare, has near zero impact on stimulating the ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: What waste exist in the fiscal stimulus plan
    ... Any spending that does not give you the most ... Building new schools, while it may be a good thing>> to ... Because the goal should be to create permanent>> jobs, ... Spending money on heathcare, has near zero impact on stimulating ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
    ... The same spending rules have to apply to ALL of our needs.....If you're ... then be tight-assed about how you spend money you don't ... the administration knew it had to deal with. ... this day of rampant personal and goverment deficits, ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading