Highways Bill

[Bono]

The fact is, the current system perpetuates the "sh**tty roads" rather than doing anything to improve the condition of the road system.
There are several problems with the current financing system which contribute to this, and keeping it in place will only perpetuate the adverse incentives inherent in the system:

Federal financing encourages low priority and unnecesary projects: the regions retain formal responsablity for the financing of their highways but they don't have to meet more than a small part of the financing--federal contributions range from 75 to 90%. That allows regions to break ground on less important projects and boondoggles at the expense of road users in other regions. The federal funding of regional roads tends to result in excessive demand for expensive facilities, because to the regions--which are only nominally responsible for their funding--federal funds are virtually free. Obviously, regions line up for this "free" money. Thus, this sytem allows for the construction of white elephants like Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project(known as 'Big Dig'), for which local funding probably wouldn't even have been considered. Initially estimated at 3.3$ billions, the  cost balloned to 14.6$ billion.

Fuel taxes are used for all sorts of other spending: the large-scale diversion of money from the Highway Trust Fund started in 1982 with the opening in the FHTF of the Mass Transit Account and was accelerated by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The 1998 Transportation Equity Act funded items that were cleary for roads, such as the "Interestate Maintenance Program", items that could be for roads, such as "miscellaneous Studies" and items that most definitely weren't for roads, like "Recreational Trails Program". the non road expenditure nears 25% of the gas tax funds, including the hundreds of billion dollars for the Puerto Rico Highway Program, that is for roads, but is benefiting people who don't even pay the gas tax.

Federal financing inflates road costs, in three main ways: Regions are required to follow labor regulations such as the Davis-Bacon rules and "Buy America" provisions, both of which can raise highway costs substantially. Davis-Bacon rules only increase highway costs in an estimated 30%; federal specifications for road construction can be higher, and therefore more expensive, than reginla standards; finally, there are significant administrative costs in sending monies from the regions to the feds and back again. Published data indicates that in FY2002 administrative costs atributable to federal involvment, at both federal and state levels, increased highway costs about 5%. Ralph Stanley, an entrepeneur who concieved and launched the Dulles Greenway, a 14-mile private road from the Dulles airport to Leesburg in north Virginia, estimated that federal involvment increased project costs by 20%. Robert Farris, who was comissioner of the Tennessee Departent of Transporation and federal highway administrator has sugested similar numbers.

Federal financing misallocates funds between regions: some regions get persistently more out of the FHTF than they pay into it. This probably has more to do with the particular political clout of certain senators and less with transportation needs. there is a tendency for the Southeast to subsidise the Northeast. Since 1982 this has been exacerbated by the diversion of FHTF funds to pay for mass transit programs, most of which are in the Northeast.

The senate should get commited to federalist alues and decentralize the road system financing to the regions, which would then be free to chose their own method of financing, either by gas tax, or by alternative taxation methods. Some regions could opt by taxing emissions, for example. Also, each region would have the incentives to fund the most needed projects rather than those who'd get most federal money.

[Bono]

Can we please get past knee-jerk "the roads are crappy 'round here" reactions and actually think about this issue?
I doubt many of the roads y'all are talking about are even federally funded.

[Bono]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

[Bono]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The regions can create a gas tax to fund the roads, or any other alternative tax they want to. In fact, I strongly suggest they do. I just don't see why this has to be done federally, and I wrote my case about the problems of the federal intervention back there. I think the only reason you are against this is that the Northeast benefits disproportionally from FHTF funds, including for projects that aren't even road related.

[Bono]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

Why must you insist on slashing and burning just about everything within the remit of the federal government?

I believe the regions can be more efficient in the fuding of roads. I explained the problems of the federal funding system back there. I don't remember ever propising to this chamber slashing and burning "everything", like defense, for instance.

[Bono]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

So, if the voters of one region want to fund highways less, why shouldn't they be able to do so? In this system it's the same thing, the federal money is distributed on what the regional needs supposedly are. If a region thinks highwyas aren't very important they aren't going to recieve funding without asking for it. In the end, it just leaves us with expensive, inneficient roads.

[Bono]

Of course... Let's not slash defense, but please, let's slash internal improvements.

Once again, I stand by my position... I do not believe that I should burden my already distressed reigon anymore than it already is.

I'd be open to a plan that allowed for joint funding, but I still I think as far as my region goes, the federal government will have to front for a majority of the cost. I will not, and can not in good conscience cut off funding for most of my district, which a majority of highways are federally funded.

Senator Hawk, as I was about to post my feelings, you beat me to it, so I wish to address your comments as well.

As I said, I'd be open to a joint effort, but highways are a high priority here, specifically, because they wear in certain places rather quickly, and you can't go three days without seeing some construction. Either way, Senator, as I said, I will not cut the proverbial legs out from underneath District One.

The northeast is an extremely wealthy region. I don't see why its citizens cannot bear the replacement of the federal gas tax by a regional one. Of coruse, the senator is perfectly happy with poor people in the poorer southeast subsidizing roads and mass transit projects in his region.

And I support cuts in the defense department, but not "slash and burn", which was what Senator Hawk was talking about.

[Bono]

I don't see that we're so wealthy, when a majority of our cities are financially distressed.

Who the hell is talking about local governments? 'm talking about regional governments, and you still haven't provided me with any convincing reason why replacing a federal gas tax by a regional gas tax would result in the decreasing of revenue. As for financial problems in the cities, try perpetual control by incompetent token extreme leftists and special interest groups for a reason.

[Bono]

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

So, if the voters of one region want to fund highways less, why shouldn't they be able to do so? In this system it's the same thing, the federal money is distributed on what the regional needs supposedly are. If a region thinks highwyas aren't very important they aren't going to recieve funding without asking for it. In the end, it just leaves us with expensive, inneficient roads.

When it comes to highways, universal standards matter to me . I'm hesitant to support any legislation that might result in significant differentials from region to region to the point that in one region all might improve with the roads to another where all might continue to deteriorate further

I don't see what the problem is, you are just denying the people of one region the right to have their roads as they want. But that is neither here nor there, if you want standards, you can just legislate them, that doesn't mean you have to fund them federally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Defense? I should jolly well hope not . Though I do recall you highlighting the defense budget for cutbacks back in those halcyon days of our campaign for the then District 4 Senate seat. Still, I'm not surprised since such a proposal would, mercifully, have gained little to no traction

As a staunch believer in Atlasian Exceptionalism , I'm always going to oppose anything that I remotely consider taking us down the path of the 'Somalisation' of Atlasia

You've never made any secret of your disdain for government, federal especially[/quote]
Yes, I stand by my statement that there is a lot of pork to cut in the defense department, and that lot's of it could take cuts and you wouldn't notice a difference, excet maybe, in the level of whining of special interests. However, that's different from slashing and burning.

'Hawk'
[/quote]

[Bono]

I don't see that we're so wealthy, when a majority of our cities are financially distressed.

Who the hell is talking about local governments? 'm talking about regional governments, and you still haven't provided me with any convincing reason why replacing a federal gas tax by a regional gas tax would result in the decreasing of revenue. As for financial problems in the cities, try perpetual control by incompetent token extreme leftists and special interest groups for a reason.

Once again, the communication has broken down... What difference would it make to have the federal government front the money?

I wrote a post back there with the difference it makes.

[Bono]

I don't see what the problem is, you are just denying the people of one region the right to have their roads as they want. But that is neither here nor there, if you want standards, you can just legislate them, that doesn't mean you have to fund them federally.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people of a particular region don't want their regional governments to spend a dime on constructing or maintaining highways in that region, then so be it?

Nevertheless, if this Bill does come to anything, which given the sentiments expressed thus far by my esteemed colleagues I very much doubt, too right I'll be legislating standards

'Hawk'

Why would that happen?
And yes, this does matter, because it shows that most scnarios devised to refute stuff like this are inplausibly farfetched and ridiculous. No people would do that, they are just a cartoon created to make a dumb point. I hate that.

[Bono]

Can I just point out that the Regional government (no, it's worse than that. Regional politics, period) in the Mideast has effectively collapsed?

I've got to admit that that had crossed my mind too; however, in my objections to this Bill, I decided not to raise it because I had no wish to be disparaging towards the regions but the fact remains, in some regions, government is not operating as effectively as it ought to be

If things don't improve I can see more federalism on the agenda, not less, and I'd hate to see that happen. Things are just fine as they are, as long as its working

'Hawk'

Well, y'know Senator Hawk, they say if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Except  IT IS BROKE. I made a post two pages before about the problems it has. I have pointed this out multiple times, and you still insist on ignoring it.  I can only conclude that your only objective is to further a left wing hack agenda without any regards for the facts.

[Bono]

I'm honestly convinced Mr. Bono, that your agenda is to only cut funding for everything.

Baseless, as I've clearly not proposed such things, and in fact during my past senate tenures have voted for funding increases in certain areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you'd get your way, so would be the federal government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then back it up. You are just being boneheaded. I've presented you claims and backed them up. You present only denial. You are the personification of everything that is wrong with this senate--you are conservative in the worst possible sense of the word: you are a complete reactionary who is scared shitless of any sort of change that can alter your beloved status quo, and can only propose the same left wing hack solutions that are not solutions at all. You are anti-reason and let emotions base your political reasoning instead of facts, and talking to you is like talking to a fucking brickwall.