Virginia: The $5 Transportation Solution
Scott M. Kozel
that clearly show the benefits of raising the fuel taxes for increasing
the highway program funding. Do it regularly, from various different
writers.
This is -positive- advocacy, as opposed to the negative advocacy of (for
example) yelling about "anti-tax Republicans in the House of Delegates"
that only makes most folks more resistant to raising the levies.
Whitehurst also makes the point that while he works in the highway
contracting industry, that they would pay heavily, as their fleets of
large road vehicles pay heavily in road use levies.
...................
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/op_ed/article/ED-WHITE14_20091113-191803/305523/
Win for Virginia: The $5 Transportation Solution
WILSON WHITEHURST GUEST COLUMNIST
Published: November 14, 2009
Most Virginians would agree that efficiently moving goods and people is
paramount to establishing and maintaining a vibrant economy. The wheels
of commerce are greased by roads and railways that allow unimpeded, safe
travel. Our transportation networks are valuable assets, tools with
which Virginia builds business and creates prosperity.
There also is no debate that one of the core services of state
government is providing for the transportation system. Party ideologies
aside, the next governor and members of the General Assembly must
confront and at least begin to solve how Virginia will sustain and
enhance its transportation system. If they can deal effectively with
this issue, our commonwealth will be poised to embrace the economic
recovery and prosperity that will most surely come.
Another compelling reason to maintain a substantial investment in
transportation is jobs. Infrastructure construction employment is one of
the most effective ways to keep people working. Everyone agrees that
reducing unemployment and maintaining work force productivity is at the
heart of recession recovery.
If all this is true, then why do Virginians seem unwilling to face our
transportation needs? Why are the politics of a difficult economy
blinding our elected officials? Why can't we make some prudent and
seemingly logical decisions regarding our roads, railways, and public
transit system?
Four essential components to any viable transportation funding package are:
(1)Those using the system must proportionally pay for the system.
(2)The funding mechanism must operate efficiently, free from large
overhead costs.
(3)Those travelling through Virginia from other states must pay to use
the system.
(4)Transportation funding must be statewide in scope.
The Virginia fuel tax is the ideal mechanism for supporting our
transportation needs -- a true "user fee" with a simple, effective
collection system already in place. Anyone purchasing fuel in Virginia
-- regardless of their state of registration -- pays the tax.
Virginia's fuel tax rate has not increased in 23 years, while fuel
consumption has decreased, the cost of maintenance and construction has
dramatically increased, and the system has been vastly expanded. The
funding shortfall is substantial.
Though opinions vary regarding the magnitude of the funding shortfall,
most set the annual gap at about $1 billion. How do we, the citizens of
the commonwealth, begin to address this problem? I submit that an
increase of a dime to the fuel tax would be a substantial beginning.
This would generate about one half of the shortfall -- about $500
million per year.
The actual cost of such an increase to the average motorist is often
misunderstood and distorted. If your vehicle gets 20 mpg, then the dime
increase will cost an additional one half cent per mile. That means the
average driver, travelling 12,000 miles per year, would spend a mere $5
more per month. Adding an indexing feature to this new tax rate, which
would adjust automatically to economic conditions, would ensure that
legislators would not have to revisit transportation funding every few
years.
Some might charge that a contractor lobbying for transportation money is
self-serving. On the contrary, if the fuel tax is increased, VDOT
contractors -- like me -- will actually be paying a large portion of
this fee, since we operate fleets of heavy motor vehicles which travel
many more miles than the average Virginian.
While the members of my association are in the business to trade work
for transportation dollars, most not only are concerned for their own
businesses and the people they employ, but also care about the
infrastructure of the commonwealth. We realize how much the system has
been neglected and needs repair. We experience, firsthand, the commerce
in our state slowing to a crawl. We witness the huge traffic problems
and quality-of-life issues that arise from an overwhelmed transportation
network on a daily basis.
All citizens must realize that we are not entitled to well-maintained
roads and bridges in Virginia -- we must be willing to pay for the
freedom and ease of mobility. Our transportation systems are essential
investments that we can't ignore anymore. Let your legislator know that
funding transportation is the right thing to do for Virginia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Whitehurst is president of Whitehurst Paving Company Inc., a
Richmond-based VDOT contractor, and president of the Old Dominion
Highway Contractors Association. Contact him at
wwhit...@whitehurstcos.com.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Larry G
> SMK: This IMHO is the right way to do the advocacy, produce articles
> that clearly show the benefits of raising the fuel taxes for increasing
> the highway program funding. Do it regularly, from various different
> writers.
>
> This is -positive- advocacy, as opposed to the negative advocacy of (for
> example) yelling about "anti-tax Republicans in the House of Delegates"
> that only makes most folks more resistant to raising the levies.
>
> Whitehurst also makes the point that while he works in the highway
> contracting industry, that they would pay heavily, as their fleets of
> large road vehicles pay heavily in road use levies.
> ...................
>
one of the reasons people don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes is
that they believe there is virtually no transparency and
accountability as to how it is spent.
For instance, nowhere in Virginia do folks know for their own county -
how much that county generates in gasoline taxes and how much it gets
back in maintenance, operations and new projects.
so there is always the suspicion that if taxes are raised that they'll
be spent somewhere else with more political clout.
If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
they do in 46 other states.
If we want more state level roads then they ought to be toll roads
where everyone including the truckers can make a quid quo pro decision
every time they need to travel.
When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
how they operate. When the public pays for roads - there is no
incentive for trucking companies to become more efficient.
John Lansford
>
>one of the reasons people don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes is
>that they believe there is virtually no transparency and
>accountability as to how it is spent.
>
>For instance, nowhere in Virginia do folks know for their own county -
>how much that county generates in gasoline taxes and how much it gets
>back in maintenance, operations and new projects.
>
>so there is always the suspicion that if taxes are raised that they'll
>be spent somewhere else with more political clout.
>
>If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
>they do in 46 other states.
And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
crap. FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
rates of any type of road. The reason is mostly because they are way
too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
and slipshod maintenance.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, your response is "if the local users want
better roads they can pay for them". It's my opinion that the lower
you go down in government, the higher the level of corruption and
"petty politics" ends up playing a part in the decision making
process. Everyone pays attention if the Governor hires his brother to
a state contract; no one pays attention if a county commissioner hires
his brother Joe to upgrade a road.
>If we want more state level roads then they ought to be toll roads
>where everyone including the truckers can make a quid quo pro decision
>every time they need to travel.
Far more state roads aren't controlled access (not qualified for
tolls) then there are ones with controlled access (and capable of
being tolled). State roads serve a purpose beyond property access;
they provide the connection between the local and arterial routes in
every state, as well as providing adjacent property access. You could
no more toll "state level roads" then you could toll the road in front
of your house to raise money for needed improvements.
>When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
>how they operate.
No, they take other, often less capable routes to avoid them, if at
all possible.
> When the public pays for roads - there is no
>incentive for trucking companies to become more efficient.
Nonsense. Competition between companies, and the demands of their
customers, have already caused all sorts of efficiencies in the
trucking industry.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
JG
>
> >When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
> >how they operate.
>
> No, they take other, often less capable routes to avoid them, if at
> all possible.
>
> > When the public pays for roads - there is no
> >incentive for trucking companies to become more efficient.
>
> Nonsense. Competition between companies, and the demands of their
> customers, have already caused all sorts of efficiencies in the
> trucking industry.
The only "innovations" are longer and HEAVIER trucks, with little
increased tax payments to cover their damage to pavement.
Then they try and drum up gas tax increases on motorists to deflect
their responsibility for damages and accidents.
Pete Jenior
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hdmqlj$pds$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> SMK: This IMHO is the right way to do the advocacy, produce articles
> that clearly show the benefits of raising the fuel taxes for increasing
> the highway program funding. Do it regularly, from various different
> writers.
>
being repeated over and over.
Pete
Larry G
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >one of the reasons people don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes is
> >that they believe there is virtually no transparency and
> >accountability as to how it is spent.
>
> >For instance, nowhere in Virginia do folks know for their own county -
> >how much that county generates in gasoline taxes and how much it gets
> >back in maintenance, operations and new projects.
>
> >so there is always the suspicion that if taxes are raised that they'll
> >be spent somewhere else with more political clout.
>
> >If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
> >they do in 46 other states.
>
> And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
> crap. FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
> rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
> rates of any type of road. The reason is mostly because they are way
> too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
> and slipshod maintenance.
If most folks knew of much of the gas tax went to maintain their local
roads and how much did not - then they could better determine what
they would get from a gas tax increase.
there needs to be a better level of transparency and accountability
with respect to what people would get for say a nickel increase... or
a dime... even..
Local Referenda to improve local roads are often successful in
Virginia for good reason. The projects are named and the amount of tax
increase required is named.
The one regional referenda that failed in Northern Va failed because
it identified which projects "might" be built and the public was not
fooled and it went down to defeat.
We do not owe the truckers better roads, quicker roads are even rest
stops.
trucks are a business just like railroads are - and trucks need to be
paying for the actual cost of providing infrastructure for them. Much
of the damage that we see on the Interstates has been caused by
trucks.
We need an honest study do determine what the trucks fair share of the
roads should be IMHO.
With regard to surface streets, I agree - they are not practical to
toll but again - I think even for a region, an MPO - there needs to be
a connection between how much the tax will be and how much money that
will generate for that region.
People are no longer going to sign on to a generalized tax increase
that they can't see what the money will be spent for.
Froggie
>
> We do not owe the truckers better roads, quicker roads are even rest
> stops.
Perahps not, but we DO owe the traveling public those items...
Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Larry Sheldon
>> On Nov 15, 9:14 pm, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We do not owe the truckers better roads, quicker roads are even rest
>> stops.
>
> Perahps not, but we DO owe the traveling public those items...
You don't owe anybody anything.
It is all a function of what you want to attract.
I'm sure the paper mills (just to name one) would be glad for you to
close down the roads completely.
A surely, walking to Ohio for your beer would be no big....Oh wait.
What will you walk on? Oh, right, the same thing your ancestors walked
on--as far as the still.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
gpsman
>
> The only "innovations" are longer and HEAVIER trucks,
Seems sequitur, but it isn't.
Permitted max. trailer length increased from 48-53', but the most
important thing about weight is distribution.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/brdgcalc/calc_page.htm
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications
/size_regs_final_rpt/
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/index.htm
Gross and single and tandem axle weight limits have remained unchanged
at 80/20/34K
<q>Average <tractor-trailer> tare weight <unladen> increased about
1,000 to 2,000 lbs., for trucks with 5-axles or more
between 1987/1992 (e.g., 3-S2 Basic Enclosed Vans increased from
29,300 to
30,500 lbs.).
Average payload weight (load) decreased, about 1,000 to 3,000 lbs.,
for trucks with 5-axles or
more between 1987/1992 (e.g., 3-S2 Basic Enclosed Vans decreased from
37,500 to 36,200 lbs.).
(pdf) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/exsumrp2.pdf
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >they do in 46 other states.
>
> And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
> crap. FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
> rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
> rates of any type of road. The reason is mostly because they are way
> too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
> and slipshod maintenance.
Non sequitur.
> >When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
> >how they operate.
>
> No, they take other, often less capable routes to avoid them, if at
> all possible.
No, they take alternate routes based on cost/benefit ratio.
> > When the public pays for roads - there is no
> >incentive for trucking companies to become more efficient.
>
> Nonsense. Competition between companies, and the demands of their
> customers, have already caused all sorts of efficiencies in the
> trucking industry.
Every real businessperson knows the best way to save money is to not
waste it. There seems to be a tendency to assign the stereotype of
the dumb truck driver to the entire industry.
http://3sixty.transcore.com/trailer-tracking
http://corporate.maptuit.com/transportation/default.php
(pdf) http://www.alk.com/PDF/PCMILER%2021_PCMILER%20Fuel%20Optimization%20Feature%20Sheet.pdf
Improving the efficiency of trucking is a small industry.
-----
- gpsman
John Lansford
>On Nov 15, 4:51�pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >one of the reasons people don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes is
>> >that they believe there is virtually no transparency and
>> >accountability as to how it is spent.
>>
>> >For instance, nowhere in Virginia do folks know for their own county -
>> >how much that county generates in gasoline taxes and how much it gets
>> >back in maintenance, operations and new projects.
>>
>> >so there is always the suspicion that if taxes are raised that they'll
>> >be spent somewhere else with more political clout.
>>
>> >If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
>> >they do in 46 other states.
>>
>> And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
>> crap. �FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
>> rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
>> rates of any type of road. �The reason is mostly because they are way
>> too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
>> and slipshod maintenance.
>
>If most folks knew of much of the gas tax went to maintain their local
>roads and how much did not - then they could better determine what
>they would get from a gas tax increase.
Very little tax money goes to local roads, Larry; that's why they are
in such crappy shape and designed to very low standards.
>there needs to be a better level of transparency and accountability
>with respect to what people would get for say a nickel increase... or
>a dime... even..
>
>Local Referenda to improve local roads are often successful in
>Virginia for good reason. The projects are named and the amount of tax
>increase required is named.
That's a really scattershot way to provide maintenance and
construction funds, Larry. The state's abandoning its responsibility
to provide for the safety of its citizens when it lets the funding and
projects get chosen by a vote. What's next, not replace a bridge
because the voters don't want to spend money on it?
>The one regional referenda that failed in Northern Va failed because
>it identified which projects "might" be built and the public was not
>fooled and it went down to defeat.
>
>We do not owe the truckers better roads, quicker roads are even rest
>stops.
>
>trucks are a business just like railroads are - and trucks need to be
>paying for the actual cost of providing infrastructure for them. Much
>of the damage that we see on the Interstates has been caused by
>trucks.
>
>We need an honest study do determine what the trucks fair share of the
>roads should be IMHO.
In a perfect world I'd agree with you; trucks create about 90% of the
damage to pavements and without them pavements wouldn't need to be
much more than about 8" thick. However, in reality you're not ever
going to see truckers being forced to pay their "fair share", because
they would either go out of business or lobby politicians to get the
taxes reduced.
>With regard to surface streets, I agree - they are not practical to
>toll but again - I think even for a region, an MPO - there needs to be
>a connection between how much the tax will be and how much money that
>will generate for that region.
>
>People are no longer going to sign on to a generalized tax increase
>that they can't see what the money will be spent for.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, then. It's unrealistic to
provide a list of projects this specific tax increase would fund, due
to the variables in design and construction and the long lead time
needed to get those projects ready to build.
John Lansford
>On Nov 15, 4:51�pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
>> >they do in 46 other states.
>>
>> And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
>> crap. �FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
>> rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
>> rates of any type of road. �The reason is mostly because they are way
>> too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
>> and slipshod maintenance.
>
>Non sequitur.
TN designs local roads from the county level; they are universally
substandard, with narrow lanes, little to no shoulders, no guardrail,
narrow bridges, crumbling pavement, etc. SC is no better from what
I've seen, or Florida, or Alabama. Hawaii too.
When the locals are responsible for the design and maintenance of the
roads, the pressure to keep the costs down is intense. I've seen
local projects here in NC where we were told "we've got this much
money, what can we get with it?", and when we reviewed and priced the
design and told them it would cost more, they slashed the design to
below what NCDOT considered safe.
(For those of you wondering where I'm talking about, go look at the
Wade Avenue/US 1 loop headed north on US 1 and tell me that accel lane
is the proper length. I reviewed those plans and recommended a longer
accel lane; Raleigh wrote back and said they didn't have the money to
do that so they put in one that's about 200' too short.)
>> >When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
>> >how they operate.
>>
>> No, they take other, often less capable routes to avoid them, if at
>> all possible.
>
>No, they take alternate routes based on cost/benefit ratio.
And the toll is part of that.
Larry G
> I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, then. It's unrealistic to
> provide a list of projects this specific tax increase would fund, due
> to the variables in design and construction and the long lead time
> needed to get those projects ready to build.
I realize that proportionally not that much of the gas tax dollar goes
to local roads but it's more than many people think and I still
continue to believe that some level of transparency and accountability
is required to gain more of the publics trust when it comes to talk of
increasing those taxes.
People, legitimately, have a right to know how the money will be spent
- and a right to decide once they do know if they think it is worth it
to them.
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 4:51 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >If people want better LOCAL roads they can pay more LOCAL taxes like
> >> >they do in 46 other states.
>
> >> And in the majority of those 46 states, Larry, those local roads are
> >> crap. FHWA studies over and over and over again show that two lane
> >> rural roads (i.e., local roads) have the highest crash and fatality
> >> rates of any type of road. The reason is mostly because they are way
> >> too often designed "on the cheap", with little to no design standards
> >> and slipshod maintenance.
>
> >Non sequitur.
>
> TN designs local roads from the county level; they are universally
> substandard, with narrow lanes, little to no shoulders, no guardrail,
> narrow bridges, crumbling pavement, etc. SC is no better from what
> I've seen, or Florida, or Alabama. Hawaii too.
Don't they just ricochet back onto the road from all the trucks that
must be lining the ditches?
> When the locals are responsible for the design and maintenance of the
> roads, the pressure to keep the costs down is intense
Seems more likely the pressure would be related to value.
> I've seen
> local projects here in NC where we were told "we've got this much
> money, what can we get with it?", and when we reviewed and priced the
> design and told them it would cost more, they slashed the design to
> below what NCDOT considered safe.
So why the fuck are they asking you?
> (For those of you wondering where I'm talking about, go look at the
> Wade Avenue/US 1 loop headed north on US 1 and tell me that accel lane
> is the proper length.
Looks fine to me.
> I reviewed those plans and recommended a longer
> accel lane; Raleigh wrote back and said they didn't have the money to
> do that so they put in one that's about 200' too short.)
Compared to Firestone Blvd to I-5S?
> >> >When trucks have to pay tolls, they are forced to make efficiencies in
> >> >how they operate.
>
> >> No, they take other, often less capable routes to avoid them, if at
> >> all possible.
>
> >No, they take alternate routes based on cost/benefit ratio.
>
> And the toll is part of that.
Thanks, Greenspan.
-----
- gpsman
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> one of the reasons people don't want to pay higher gasoline taxes is
> that they believe there is virtually no transparency and
> accountability as to how it is spent.
No. That's just a lame excuse, which really means "I want the maximum
benefits, but I'm too cheap to pay for them."
Or, "I get all my information from the demogogues on talk radio".
Detailed government records have always been available to those
willing to make just a little bit of effort, such as visiting a public
library or sending out an inquiry. Today a great deal of material is
out on the web.
I attended and testified at a public hearing. I received a CD loaded
with materials; including engineering plans, costs, recommendations,
and transcripts of all testimony and the official response.
Public meetings are boring. Wading through all the paper is boring.
but the information is there if someone is willing to get off their
butt and look at it. Most people couldn't be bothered.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Permitted max. trailer length increased from 48-53', but the most
> important thing about weight is
It's one thing to run 53' foot trucks over modern interstates that
have gentle curves and ramps to and from truck terminals located on
large roads near the interchanges.
But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
for its needed turning radius. Not fun.
Also, said trucks are used on local deliveries to places where the
driveways and streets are far too small for them. Once again when the
truck turns all traffic is blocked. The parking lot of the business
receiving the goods is blocked.
Often times these big trucks jump the curb. Curbs are expensive for
individual property owners to replace.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In a perfect world I'd agree with you; trucks create about 90% of the
> damage to pavements and without them pavements wouldn't need to be
> much more than about 8" thick. However, in reality you're not ever
> going to see truckers being forced to pay their "fair share", because
> they would either go out of business or lobby politicians to get the
> taxes reduced.
Or truckers will go out 'on strike' and simply shut their rigs down en
masse blocking highways, as they've done in the past to protest high
costs.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Every real businessperson knows the best way to save money is to not
> waste it. There seems to be a tendency to assign the stereotype of
> the dumb truck driver to the entire industry.
Not accurate.
Every real business person knows that running a business requires
tradeoffs. There are no easy answers. Is it "wasted money" to leave
exterior lights on all night when the business is closed; or a smart
move to protect the property?
In moving freight, there is the direct cost of labor, the direct cost
of fuel, and the capital cost of the vehicle (among other costs).
There are tradeoffs, such as passing up one shipment to get a more
profitable one. Some runs incur indirect costs (overnight
accomodations) which may outweight the revenue of that run. Sometimes
it may be necessary to undertake a money-losing shipment in order to
stay in good graces with an otherwise profitable shipper. And so on.
gpsman
> On Nov 16, 12:48 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Permitted max. trailer length increased from 48-53', but the most
> > important thing about weight is
>
> It's one thing to run 53' foot trucks over modern interstates that
> have gentle curves and ramps to and from truck terminals located on
> large roads near the interchanges.
>
> But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
> onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
> vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
> for its needed turning radius.
And they're tough to see around, too.
And turning R from a 4-lane street they often deliberately block the R
lane and use the whole L lane.
I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
Trucks bad?
> Not fun.
Try it from the truck sometime.
> Also, said trucks are used on local deliveries to places where the
> driveways and streets are far too small for them. Once again when the
> truck turns all traffic is blocked. The parking lot of the business
> receiving the goods is blocked.
Have you spoken to any proprietors of your concerns?
> Often times these big trucks jump the curb. Curbs are expensive for
> individual property owners to replace.
And they run over signs and hit light poles and bridges.
I don't know what to tell you. If truck driving paid more perhaps
you'd get better drivers... but that's gonna cost you, too.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
>> But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
>> onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
>> vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
>> for its needed turning radius.
>
> And they're tough to see around, too.
>
> And turning R from a 4-lane street they often deliberately block the R
> lane and use the whole L lane.
>
> I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
You are not paying attention.
His point is he wants to pay $83 for a can of beer so the stuff can be
hauled from the brewery to a terminal someplace in the desert in pickup
trucks (hence the name!), reloaded onto trucks, hauled a few feet closer
to the destination, reloaded onto pickup trucks for transport to the
distributor.
The fact that most of the "Truck Routes" are marked and stripped for
trucks, complete with limit lines that if observed by the 4-wheelers,
and traffic lights that if observed by 4-wheelers will allow the trucks
to move efficiently.
Those terminals he is whining about are almost always where the local
PTB wanted them to be, payed-for with tax breaks, eminent domain
proceedings and so on.
Or else they where built out in the middle of nowhere and people bought
new houses to be near work.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
> > onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
> > vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
> > for its needed turning radius.
>
> And they're tough to see around, too.
> And turning R from a 4-lane street they often deliberately block the R
> lane and use the whole L lane.
> I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
53' foot trucks should not be allowed on many of the roads where
they're allowed today because they're just too big for the size of the
road. Terminal to terminal via modern Interstates is ok and probably
the bulk of the truck traffic, so restrictions wouldn't hurt them.
> > Also, said trucks are used on local deliveries to places where the
> > driveways and streets are far too small for them. Once again when the
> > truck turns all traffic is blocked. The parking lot of the business
> > receiving the goods is blocked.
>
> Have you spoken to any proprietors of your concerns?
Yes.
JG
> On Nov 16, 1:51 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:48 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Permitted max. trailer length increased from 48-53', but the most
> > > important thing about weight is
>
> > It's one thing to run 53' foot trucks over modern interstates that
> > have gentle curves and ramps to and from truck terminals located on
> > large roads near the interchanges.
>
> > But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
> > onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
> > vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
> > for its needed turning radius.
>
> And they're tough to see around, too.
>
> And turning R from a 4-lane street they often deliberately block the R
> lane and use the whole L lane.
>
> I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
>
> Trucks bad?
Don't block multiple lanes making turns and KEEP OUT of the left lane
on Chicago area expressways. Especially if you have TX or OK plates.
And pay the full costs of your pavement damage...JG
gpsman
> On Nov 16, 1:21 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Every real businessperson knows the best way to save money is to not
> > waste it. There seems to be a tendency to assign the stereotype of
> > the dumb truck driver to the entire industry.
>
> Not accurate.
>
> Every real business person knows that running a business requires
> tradeoffs. There are no easy answers. Is it "wasted money" to leave
> exterior lights on all night when the business is closed; or a smart
> move to protect the property?
I did not mean to imply a monkey might do it. gpsman regrets the
error.
There are plenty of easy answers. Is it "wasted money" to leave on
exterior lights during daylight?
Making a swing toward on-topic, even a trucker can determine whether
taking a toll road is worth the money, and often it obviously is not.
> In moving freight, there is the direct cost of labor, the direct cost
> of fuel, and the capital cost of the vehicle (among other costs).
Thanks, Warren.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> 53' foot trucks should not be allowed on many of the roads where
> they're allowed today because they're just too big for the size of the
> road.
I spent 2 hours going around the block in Astoria OR, but I suspect
you mean wherever a truck might be delayed turning due to numbskulls
neglecting the "ticky-tacky" part of vehicle code that includes stop
bars and points and parking.
> Terminal to terminal via modern Interstates is ok and probably
> the bulk of the truck traffic, so restrictions wouldn't hurt them.
They have restrictions.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm
You don't seem to be able to reasonably consider what might hurt whom,
probably because you don't know much about your subject and are
reacting emotionally rather than rationally.
> > Have you spoken to any proprietors of your concerns?
>
> Yes.
Didn't settle your issue for you, I take it.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> Making a swing toward on-topic, even a trucker can determine whether
> taking a toll road is worth the money, and often it obviously is not.
I never met a trucker worthy of being referred to as "even a trucker",
but I expect a moron can work out if he or she will be reimbursed fot
the expense.
And most idiots can work out whether paying for it him- or herself is
worth it.
And paying a huge toll to drive 55 MPH when you can drive that "for
free" is something the stupidest Billy Bigrig can work out.
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
> > Making a swing toward on-topic, even a trucker can determine whether
> > taking a toll road is worth the money, and often it obviously is not.
>
> I never met a trucker worthy of being referred to as "even a trucker",
You don't have to meet them, you can hardly miss them in your mirrors.
> but I expect a moron can work out if he or she will be reimbursed fot
> the expense.
SOP for at least one 500+ tractor company, at the time I worked there,
was to whenever possible schedule W-E deliveries to the NE to allow
comfortably (±) avoiding the Ohio Turnpike via 6/20-10 or 30.
You could take the faster route instead, at your own expense.
I suspect many people might think a driver often goes across the
country willy-nilly, and/or as impeding traffic might allow, despite
the mountain of evidence that most trucks are operated exactly as are
so many 4-wheelers, other than any sense of prudence might suggest.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> On Nov 16, 7:10 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> gpsman wrote:
>>> Making a swing toward on-topic, even a trucker can determine whether
>>> taking a toll road is worth the money, and often it obviously is not.
>> I never met a trucker worthy of being referred to as "even a trucker",
>
> You don't have to meet them, you can hardly miss them in your mirrors.
Some do stuff that I label "stupid" for a trucker, bu anybody that is
smart enough to get 80,000 pounds across the country at minimum cost and
minimum time without killing anybody is not stupid.
Yeah, there are some stupid, I guess--but they don't last long.
Larry G
BS Hanco... that would only further their image as a bunch of
unprofessional yahoos
Larry G
I don't know about your state but I can tell you in Virginia - records
showing how much gas tax each jurisdiction paid are not provided.
it's not the engineering drawings, or the costs or the
justification... it's simply how much money am I paying and what kinds
of projects are being built with my money.
people are opposed to the gas tax because they think the money is
being diverted to projects that don't benefit them
John David Galt
> have gentle curves and ramps to and from truck terminals located on
> large roads near the interchanges.
>
> But many terminals aren't on large roads. When the big trucks turn
> onto them they tie up the entire intersection until all the other
> vehicles in the intersection get away so the truck has enough space
> for its needed turning radius. Not fun.
>
> Also, said trucks are used on local deliveries to places where the
> driveways and streets are far too small for them. Once again when the
> truck turns all traffic is blocked. The parking lot of the business
> receiving the goods is blocked.
>
> Often times these big trucks jump the curb. Curbs are expensive for
> individual property owners to replace.
Agree. And, the big trucking firms will often send a driver to places
where the roads really can't handle his truck, with no warning. My
guess is that the firms accept such orders without any attempt to
verify that the truck can safely/legally reach its destination. The
driver doesn't usually have any way to check either, beyond the atlas
they all carry (which usually doesn't show any road that isn't big
enough to justify a highway number, and has NO information on city and
county laws limiting where trucks can go and when). Yet if anyone
bothers to enforce the rules at all, the driver gets the ticket.
I would like to see the law changed so that the business where the
truck is being sent to pickup/deliver (and which presumably ordered it)
pays the penalty, since they're the only people in the chain who are in
a position to know ahead of time how large a vehicle can safely/legally
get to them.
Larry Sheldon
> Agree. And, the big trucking firms will often send a driver to places
> where the roads really can't handle his truck, with no warning. My
> guess is that the firms accept such orders without any attempt to
> verify that the truck can safely/legally reach its destination. The
> driver doesn't usually have any way to check either, beyond the atlas
> they all carry (which usually doesn't show any road that isn't big
> enough to justify a highway number, and has NO information on city and
> county laws limiting where trucks can go and when). Yet if anyone
> bothers to enforce the rules at all, the driver gets the ticket.
>
> I would like to see the law changed so that the business where the
> truck is being sent to pickup/deliver (and which presumably ordered it)
> pays the penalty, since they're the only people in the chain who are in
> a position to know ahead of time how large a vehicle can safely/legally
> get to them.
All of which confirms a breath-taking ignorance of every aspect of a
truck driver's job.
Do you really believe that drivers go careening down streets,
willy-nilly....Shit. I'm trying to argue with a stump, aren't I?
Have you ever _looked_ at an MCA?
Clark F Morris
I can only remember one instance of that in the United States. France
and Britain have both seen such strikes.
John Lansford
It was a needed project on a state road within the city limits, and
Raleigh had the money to do it and it wasn't on NCDOT's "to do" list.
Since it was on a state road, NCDOT reviewed their plans. I wrote the
paper outlining the design deficiencies; they just said "we've got
only this much money so we're only going to build this much of the
project".
>> (For those of you wondering where I'm talking about, go look at the
>> Wade Avenue/US 1 loop headed north on US 1 and tell me that accel lane
>> is the proper length.
>
>Looks fine to me.
Spoken by someone not understanding the design limitations and
constraints built into the project.
John Lansford
Indeed; despite newspaper announcements, radio broadcasts, direct
mailings, and even door-to-door hangers announcing when one of my
hearings was going to be held, we had a grand total of perhaps 30
participants and only 3 speakers, for a project considered
controversial by the city and running through a residential/commercial
area.
At another hearing in the eastern part of the state, we held TWO
complete hearings and several public meetings for a large project
along US 17. Perhaps 200 people total attended the meetings (some
attended more than one), and maybe 10% of them spoke or gave comments.
This isn't unusual; in my 25+ years of highway design, I've seen fewer
than half a dozen hearings that I'd consider well attended. You're
right; people don't want to inconvenience themselves even though we
try and make it as easy as possible for them to provide their opinion.
Email, letters, personal statements, multiple hearings and open
houses, we even will hold private meetings for specific public groups,
at their location and at their hours, and we still don't get good
attendance.
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> (For those of you wondering where I'm talking about, go look at the
> >> Wade Avenue/US 1 loop headed north on US 1 and tell me that accel lane
> >> is the proper length.
>
> >Looks fine to me.
>
> Spoken by someone not understanding the design limitations and
> constraints built into the project.
Seems like one might just make a comparison of the length of the accel
lane to 1000 other shorter ones.
No...?
-----
- gpsman
Larry G
people do not understand the process in a lot of cases. If you asked
them the difference between a location and a design hearing and what
comments would be substantiative (or not) at each.. they'd not know.
they also believe that as individuals - without organizing into a
group, that they are pretty much powerless to affect the direction of
the decisions.
and people have no idea at all how the money works. There is a total
disconnect between how they get taxed and how that money gets spent
and how.
What ya'll are seeing is a populace that does not understand and
pretty much thinks that what they think about something is pretty much
futile.. and that, in the end, they'll have no real impact on the
decision - unless they organize into an opposition group.
The FIRST step to bring this back is transparency and accountability.
You can stop it from happening.. or put it off or say that it really
is not needed - but at the end of the day - the folks who pay the tax
- will have the last laugh.
for years and years and years - people have been taxed and have been
treated in a variety of ways as if the DOT was the landlord and people
were renters.
Now we're at a point - where you are going to have to sell the idea of
higher taxes and you're going to have to go back to square one IMHO
because I can assure you having advocacy editorials written by a
paving company owner is not going to have one whit of impact on
taxpayers.
rsh...@gmail.com
Larry,
you are very unusual in as much as you even know what a stip is and
beyond that you sit on a committee
you know full well the 99.9% of the population in Fredericksburg and
the surrounding counties have not one whit of anything to do with
transportation.
continuing, you also know full well that money talks and you know the
rest
anyone can do what you do, you know that
but back to that 99.9%
they don't know and beyond that don't much care
oh, maybe when they get stuck sitting thru two, three, or four red
lights because of an accident or road const
then for about 30 minutes the will blame everyone from the Gov on down
to the dog catcher
after 31 minutes you know what happens, real life intrudes.
I have a lot of respect for you, esp because you have a great habit of
the proverbial tilting at windmills
but at some point you have to work with what you got.
yep, a tax increase is absolutely necessary
every day that goes by, the populace is screwing itself but not
allowing one
unfortunately ignorance rather then intelligence rules
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I suspect many people might think a driver often goes across the
> country willy-nilly, and/or as impeding traffic might allow, despite
> the mountain of evidence that most trucks are operated exactly as are
> so many 4-wheelers, other than any sense of prudence might suggest.
One would get that impression when a parade of trucks regularly get
stuck near or under a low bridge, despite prominent multiple warning
signs well in advance.
Happens on NYC area parkways all the time.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I don't know about your state but I can tell you in Virginia - records
> showing how much gas tax each jurisdiction paid are not provided.
I don't know the state, but I bet the information would be found.
Perhaps a little digging into raw budgets would be required; that is,
not available on line but would require a visit to a major library or
town hall and an investment of time.
> it's not the engineering drawings, or the costs or the
> justification... it's simply how much money am I paying and what kinds
> of projects are being built with my money.
The overall dollars are always reported in the newspaper. Specific
costing may be found per above.
The public hearings I've attended, in multiple states, had extremely
detailed cost breakdowns available.
> people are opposed to the gas tax because they think the money is
> being diverted to projects that don't benefit them
That's just the excuse people offer. The real reason is that they're
cheap and don't want to pay the money. You could spend hours
explaining how it _will_ benefit them and they won't care.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> people do not understand the process in a lot of cases. If you asked
> them the difference between a location and a design hearing and what
> comments would be substantiative (or not) at each.. they'd not know.
So ask!
When I first got involved in this stuff I didn't know how it worked.
I asked. The representatives were very nice and patient and explained
it all to me; and anyone else who made the effort to ask.
Of course, when the hearing opens the process is explained up front.
> they also believe that as individuals - without organizing into a
> group, that they are pretty much powerless to affect the direction of
> the decisions.
Well, if one person opposed a project that many other people do want,
the majority will prevail. But if people bother to do their homework
they can get their way.
In our town a few people did just that and got the sewer authority to
redo it's unfair rate schedule into something better. But they had to
work at it to make their case.
> and people have no idea at all how the money works. There is a total
> disconnect between how they get taxed and how that money gets spent
> and how.
Again, ask. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
> What ya'll are seeing is a populace that does not understand and
> pretty much thinks that what they think about something is pretty much
> futile.. and that, in the end, they'll have no real impact on the
> decision - unless they organize into an opposition group.
>
> The FIRST step to bring this back is transparency and accountability.
NO. The first step is for people who actually care to get off their
lazy butt and take some time to truly study and understand the issues
of a project. It's easier than ever since so much stuff is on the
web. But it must be done when a project is first proposed; not when
the bulldozers show up. That means people have do something called
"read the newspaper".
The transparency and accountability IS THERE for those willing to look
for it.
rsh...@gmail.com
idiot truck drivers that are too stoooopid to realize a 53 ft, 80,000
lb truck is NOT a passenger car
or they are too stooooopid to realize that when it says "no commercial
vehicles" a truck IS a commecial vehicle
or the best part is low bridge hits
those same idiot truck drivers are too stoooopid to realize you cannot
get a 13 foot trailer under a 12 foot bridge
but they do it all the time by the low rr bridges in NJ
Larry G
I separate the process for a particular project and the overall tax
regime for roads.
People in states where property taxes pay for local roads do know
about how those roads are funded - and they do know the process for
setting the rates for those roads - and they know how to deal with the
folks who set the rates if they do not agree.
At higher levels and in the 4 states where the local roads are
maintained by the state they do not understand the connection between
the amount of tax they pay at the pump and how that translates into
road projects in their area.
They do not know how pay they pay over a year - and they do not know
how that translates into maintenance, operations and new projects.
This is not transparency and accountability.
and it works against the longer term idea of convincing people when a
tax increase is needed - because they do not know the connection.
they don't know for instance, how much a nickel increase in the gas
tax will result in what improvements in their community...
you can't convince people to agree to tax increases under these kinds
of conditions IMHO.
You have to make the case.
You have to tell them how much they are being taxed and how it is
being spent right now.
And you have to show them why an increase is needed and how that will
result in improvements for them.
otherwise.. you're going to spend a lot of time wishing for a Gov to
get in .. do a tax increase.. fall on his sword.... etc...
people keep saying we need someone with "spine" or with some "guts".
No.. we need someone who will tell people how much they spend now and
what it goes for - and why we need more.
THAT's Transparency and Accountability.
John Lansford
I really don't give a shit about another location where the accel lane
was too short; my job on that project was to make sure Raleigh had
that project up to NCDOT standards and it wasn't. When I pointed out
the inadequate length, I was told "that's all the money we've got so
that's all we're going to build".
I drive that loop every week and not only is the accel lane way too
short, the left handed exit immediately past the ramp creates a really
hazardous weaving section across the through lanes. I also
recommended that a lower barrier be extended past the bridge to cut
off weaving traffic but they also nixed that, citing cost as well.
John Lansford
That's why we sit down and explain the difference at every hearing,
and we are more than happy to go over the maps piece by piece. I've
done it dozens of times, in fact.
>they also believe that as individuals - without organizing into a
>group, that they are pretty much powerless to affect the direction of
>the decisions.
My experience says that's hogwash; communities and neighborhoods get
organized pretty damn fast when a highway project indicates it will
affect them.
>and people have no idea at all how the money works. There is a total
>disconnect between how they get taxed and how that money gets spent
>and how.
Money collected gets spent on highway projects. Most people don't
really want to know much more than that.
>The FIRST step to bring this back is transparency and accountability.
Nonsense. You've got to get the public interested or they aren't
going to bother with finding out such things in the first place.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> At higher levels and in the 4 states where the local roads are
> maintained by the state they do not understand the connection between
> the amount of tax they pay at the pump and how that translates into
> road projects in their area.
> They do not know how pay they pay over a year - and they do not know
> how that translates into maintenance, operations and new projects.
>
> This is not transparency and accountability.
Incorrect. That is stupidity and laziness on the part of "the
people".
We live in a complicated world. Budgets are complex. Road funding is
complex. If you want to go back 100 years things will be simpler.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> That's why we sit down and explain the difference at every hearing,
> and we are more than happy to go over the maps piece by piece. I've
> done it dozens of times, in fact.
And your counterparts in numerous other states and levels of
government do it as well.
Larry G
then why do folks think roads are "paid for"?
Larry G
people don't know and don't understand and.... don't want to pay more.
Hanco thinks that people are stupid and lazy. I think that is not the
issue if the DOT needs more money. The DOT has to make the case. They
have to justify why they need more money and in order to do that you
have to give an accounting of the current monies.
and we don't do that.
most folks do not know how much the DOT spends in their county for
maintenance and ops.. and new projects. .. so when you say you want
more money they're not going to be in favor of it unless they better
understand what exactly it is for...
The DOTs never had to do this before when gas was cheap and cars were
guzzlers and the was plenty of money.
Now that money is tight.. folks are pretty much opposed to increases
in taxes - unless they understand why.
zzyzxroad
lets hear your opinion
imho those people are just what Hancock described
Larry G
they're uninformed - because they don't ever see the cost figures for
maintenance and ops which, in a place like Virginia consume a large
part of the budget.
but I make the challenge again.. for YOUR county - how much money does
your county or city generate annually in gas taxes?
If you don't know this - and you don't know how much your town'city
actually spends on maintenance and ops then how can you have an
informed opinion about whether or not the taxes you are paying are
sufficient or not?
John Lansford
>> Nonsense. �You've got to get the public interested or they aren't
>> going to bother with finding out such things in the first place.
>
>people don't know and don't understand and.... don't want to pay more.
Housing prices, food, utilities, etc, have all gone up; why would
anyone think that highway construction costs haven't gone up too?
>Hanco thinks that people are stupid and lazy. I think that is not the
>issue if the DOT needs more money. The DOT has to make the case. They
>have to justify why they need more money and in order to do that you
>have to give an accounting of the current monies.
>
>and we don't do that.
Isn't that what a TIP does? Our TIP people hold public meetings in
every division at least annually, and meet with the urban and rural
MPO's to discuss priorities and needs. Those meetings are all open to
the public and they're encouraged to attend; so are the local media,
who often report what is discussed in those meetings.
>most folks do not know how much the DOT spends in their county for
>maintenance and ops.. and new projects. .. so when you say you want
>more money they're not going to be in favor of it unless they better
>understand what exactly it is for...
Short of going door to door I'm not sure I know what else we can do,
Larry.
>The DOTs never had to do this before when gas was cheap and cars were
>guzzlers and the was plenty of money.
>
>Now that money is tight.. folks are pretty much opposed to increases
>in taxes - unless they understand why.
>
No, it's the reflexive "No tax increase" shouting done by certain
political groups that has made it difficult to get needed increases in
funding. To these groups and their followers, all they need to hear
is someone say "we need to raise taxes..." and they immediately begin
shouting "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!" without waiting to hear the
explanations.
Like I said, we've made the argument for higher funding amounts; not
only NCDOT, but FHWA and other states have all been saying the
infrastructure is falling apart, it's undersized, it needs work and
that's going to cost money. If some groups aren't listening I'd have
to say it's not because the message isn't being put out there.
Maybe some of these people are waiting until another bridge collapses
from lack of maintenance, or a horrific crash occurs due to crumbling
pavement, before they'll realize that the needs are far higher than
the funding available.
John Lansford
>On Nov 19, 4:09�pm, zzyzxroad <samm...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 1:27�pm, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 9:35�pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 18, 5:48�pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > That's why we sit down and explain the difference at every hearing,
>> > > > and we are more than happy to go over the maps piece by piece. �I've
>> > > > done it dozens of times, in fact.
>>
>> > > And your counterparts in numerous other states and levels of
>> > > government do it as well.
>>
>> > then why do folks think roads are "paid for"?
>>
>> lets hear your opinion
>>
>> imho those people are just what Hancock described
>
>they're uninformed - because they don't ever see the cost figures for
>maintenance and ops which, in a place like Virginia consume a large
>part of the budget.
How far down do you want the data broken down, Larry? AFAIK those
costs are public knowledge, and available on request. Do you want
dollars spend on each county road, dollars spent in each county,
dollars broken down per repaving project, dollars for widening
shoulders, snow removal, what do you want?
See, you like to make these big, broad assertions, but you never come
up with any specifics.
>but I make the challenge again.. for YOUR county - how much money does
>your county or city generate annually in gas taxes?
>If you don't know this - and you don't know how much your town'city
>actually spends on maintenance and ops then how can you have an
>informed opinion about whether or not the taxes you are paying are
>sufficient or not?
That's an irrelevent number, Larry, and you know it. What you're
wanting is to set up an "us vs them" situation where a rural county
with a lot of maintenance needs (snow removal, lots of rural bridges,
whatever) has to justify getting its money while a more populous
region doesn't get to spend all the money it pays out in taxes. States
don't parcel money back to counties/cities in an equivalent amount
commensurate with how much they pay out, so what's your actual agenda
here?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> most folks do not know how much the DOT spends in their county for
> maintenance and ops.. and new projects
Who exactly are "most folks"? What percentage? Based on what?
With all due respect, I've attended quite a few public hearings and
town meetings over the years.
zzyzxroad
ok, lets take Spotsylvania-Fredericksburg
how much do they collect in total
now how much of that is locals and how much of that is traffic coming
off the interstate that will never use a local street
still they pay the state and fed taxes
now here
NJDOT gets $25 million or something like that from the toll roads a
year
http://www.ucnj.org/engineerpubworks/index.html
this is supported by the Union Co Budget in addition to grants from
NJDOT funded from different sources inc fuel taxes and state property
taxes
Larry G
The data I am talking about John is NOT AVAILABLE in Va. If it is in
NC, point me to where it is made available.
People are entitled to know in their own county how their gas tax
money is spent on the facilities that they use.
I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
else.
If you say that States do not parcel money back in some proportion to
the folks that pay them - why would you expect them to support tax
increases?
I don't think this is irrelevant at all.. it is fundamental to whether
or not a majority of people will support a gas tax increase. Right now
you have about 20% that support it. The other 80% do not and at least
part of that reason is that they simply do not see how an increase
will benefit their area.
Larry G
the bridges falling down mantra is a bait and switch and people are
onto it.
the claim is that the roads are falling about unless more money is
given and then when the money is given..the bridges are not fixed ....
there will never be enough money - for any of these things. the issue
is about priorities and showing folks how the money is spent - and
showing them what does not have funding and needs it.
Referenda that show specific projects often are approved. General tax
increases that don't show specific projects are often opposed.
Larry G
show me where that data is posted in your own situation.. It is not
posted in Va.
Accountability for taxes and how they are spent on roads is not
provided at the county level in Va - and as a result, there is not
support for increasing the gas tax because people are suspicious that
it won't make a difference in their own county.
show me in your situation an accounting for gas taxes.
Larry G
we're not talking about percentages of traffic. We're talking about
how the gas tax money is spent.
I don't think most folks would expect ALL of it to be spent locally.
Most folks are smart enough to realize that some of it is spent
locally some on regional needs and some on state and interstate/
limited access road needs.
but they DO want to know how it IS allocated out.
and they especially want to know how much is spent locally.
this information is NOT provided in Virginia. I don't know about other
states. But poll after poll shows poor support for increasing the gas
tax and my premise is that people are not going to support an increase
if they do not see how it will benefit them.
This is simple accountability. A simple accounting of how much money
is collected and how it is spent.
If you look at a local county budget - you'll see such accountability
in most categories - even schools - even money that comes back from
the state to the schools but not for gasoline taxes (at least in Va).
This is no line item that shows how much was generated in gasoline
taxes and how much of it came back to the locality and how it was
spent in maintenance, ops and new projects.
If you want to make a case for increasing the gas tax, IMHO you have
to show how the additional money will be spent - just like you would
if you were going to do a local option referenda - where you show the
projects and you show the costs and the increase in taxes needed to
fund them.
That's what will be needed IMHO to build a case for increased gas
taxes.
Otherwise you're not going to get much above the 20% support that we
now see.
John Lansford
It's not online, Larry, but it is available.
>People are entitled to know in their own county how their gas tax
>money is spent on the facilities that they use.
The TIP lists which projects are being built in each county. That's
where the bulk of gas tax money is spent. Maintenance money typically
comes out of other revenue sources so it's harder to account for,
also, cleaning out a ditch is a maintenance operation but I doubt many
states could give you an itemized cost for every maintenance job.
>I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
>reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
>that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
>locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
>else.
>
>If you say that States do not parcel money back in some proportion to
>the folks that pay them - why would you expect them to support tax
>increases?
Because the state in general benefits from an improved infrastructure,
and that's what the state is interested in.
>I don't think this is irrelevant at all.. it is fundamental to whether
>or not a majority of people will support a gas tax increase. Right now
>you have about 20% that support it. The other 80% do not and at least
>part of that reason is that they simply do not see how an increase
>will benefit their area.
>
I feel the entire political landscape is so poisoned that any tax
increase, no matter how well justified, will be opposed by a sizable
proportion of the public. I've already seen this happen in my own
state.
John Lansford
>> Maybe some of these people are waiting until another bridge collapses
>> from lack of maintenance, or a horrific crash occurs due to crumbling
>> pavement, before they'll realize that the needs are far higher than
>> the funding available.
>
>the bridges falling down mantra is a bait and switch and people are
>onto it.
Really? Well then, how about just closing a bridge when it becomes
too unsafe to travel over? Or lowering the weight limitation on it to
keep it viable for a little longer?
>the claim is that the roads are falling about unless more money is
>given and then when the money is given..the bridges are not fixed ....
>
>there will never be enough money - for any of these things. the issue
>is about priorities and showing folks how the money is spent - and
>showing them what does not have funding and needs it.
>
>Referenda that show specific projects often are approved.
And often they aren't, and the infrastructure continues to
deteriorate.
>General tax
>increases that don't show specific projects are often opposed.
>
So you think putting every projects' funding up to a general vote is a
good idea?
"Proposal: to replace the bridge over Little Creek on SR 1242 in Rowan
County, costs estimated to be $750,000. YES ___ NO ____"
Is that what you'd like to see on your ballot every November?
Larry G
I don't think it's necessary to account for each individual
maintenance project but I think the overall annual costs is a number
that many would want to know.
and to give you a for instance. In many counties, people know how much
the annual operation and maintenance costs of their schools are - and
they know how much they pay in property taxes and they know that an
increase in school costs will cause an increase in taxes.
but in Va counties, for instance, most folks don't even know how
maintenance and ops for their road system even COMPARE to to schools.
This is important if those costs are also going up and ultimately will
result in no new money for new roads/improvements.
I'm actually arguing in FAVOR of how you might get to justifying a tax
increase for roads.
right now.. so little is known and understood by most folks that when
you mention increasing the taxes they are not in favor.
further.. they don't have any idea how much a penny on the gas tax
will generate.
locally, many folks know how much a penny on their property tax will
generate and they know usually where that increase might go towards
but with the gas tax they don't know. It's a mystery to them.
this undermines any advocacy for increasing such a tax because people
have such a nebulous idea of how much money will be raised verses how
much is needed verses what projects would benefit from it.
Like I said before, in Va, if you have a referenda and you list the
projects and you list the tax increases for those projects, voters
will often approve.. but when there is a disconnect between the tax
and it's use, people are a lot less inclined to support it and that's
the basic problem with the advocacies for gas tax increases.
The DOTs need to make the case IMHO... they need to have a much better
level of transparency and accountability to show people what they get
for their taxes and what they'd get for tax increases.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The data I am talking about John is NOT AVAILABLE in Va. If it is in
> NC, point me to where it is made available.
I've lived and worked in numerous places and the budget data was
available, for someone willing to visit offices and make _reasonable_
requests and do some homework.
However, public officials do not have the time to spoonfeed each and
every citizen, nor should they.
As mentioned, project data is published in the newspaper. But today
many people don't read the newspaper. That's not the highway
department's fault.
> I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
> reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
> that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
> locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
> else.
Most members of the public have a degree of common sense and accept
the need for infrastructure expenditures. But there is a small
minority with ideological agendas that does not want to be confused
with facts. There is another small minority who just want attention
and have no qualms of wasting everyone's time with frivolous
questions. And there are some
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> show me where that data is posted in your own situation.. It is not
> posted in Va.
The data is in a place called a town hall or county court house.
Other data is located in a place called the public library. Go in and
ask for specific data and they will hand you a thick binder for you to
review.
Larry G
I'm specifically talking about the 80% who are opposed to increasing
the gas tax.
do you consider that a small minority?
Larry G
more BS guy.. give me a link for your DOT or State that shows this.
you're evading now... either provide the data or admit that you cannot.
Sancho Panza
"zzyzxroad" <sam...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:c846ef69-939c-4455...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
If you are paying "state property taxes" in New Jersey, someone is swindling
you.
Sancho Panza
"Larry G" <gross...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5687550e-e7c8-439c...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
> reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
> that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
> locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
> else.
In New Jersey, they would be absolutely correct--until the voters passed a
constiutional amendment last year to require all the proceeds from the
state's Highway Trust Fund be spent solely on transportation.
zzyzxroad
> "zzyzxroad" <samm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
a portion of the property tax goes to the state does it not?
that is what I was referring to
zzyzxroad
>
>
> In New Jersey, they would be absolutely correct--until the voters passed a
> constiutional amendment last year to require all the proceeds from the
> state's Highway Trust Fund be spent solely on transportation.
unfortunately it is going for the bonds they issued
zzyzxroad
Larry
here is something else
http://www.nj.gov/transportation/about/press/2009/101409.shtm
NJDOT is giving $104 million in local aid
John Lansford
>On Nov 20, 1:50嚙緘m, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 8:30嚙窮m, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The data I am talking about John is NOT AVAILABLE in Va. If it is in
>> > NC, point me to where it is made available.
>>
>> I've lived and worked in numerous places and the budget data was
>> available, for someone willing to visit offices and make _reasonable_
>> requests and do some homework.
>>
>> However, public officials do not have the time to spoonfeed each and
>> every citizen, nor should they.
>>
>> As mentioned, project data is published in the newspaper. 嚙畿ut today
>> many people don't read the newspaper. 嚙確hat's not the highway
>> department's fault.
>>
>> > I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
>> > reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
>> > that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
>> > locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
>> > else.
>>
>> Most members of the public have a degree of common sense and accept
>> the need for infrastructure expenditures. 嚙畿ut there is a small
>> minority with ideological agendas that does not want to be confused
>> with facts. 嚙確here is another small minority who just want attention
>> and have no qualms of wasting everyone's time with frivolous
>> questions. 嚙璀nd there are some
>
>I'm specifically talking about the 80% who are opposed to increasing
>the gas tax.
>
>do you consider that a small minority?
I'd like to see some citation to that claim, please, because I think
it's BS.
John Lansford
In NC you can contact the division's maintenance engineers and they
can give you the amount spent in each county. It's not online though,
but I'm not one of those people who think every single thing done by
the government should be online either.
Larry G
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 20, 8:30 am, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The data I am talking about John is NOT AVAILABLE in Va. If it is in
> >> > NC, point me to where it is made available.
>
> >> I've lived and worked in numerous places and the budget data was
> >> available, for someone willing to visit offices and make _reasonable_
> >> requests and do some homework.
>
> >> However, public officials do not have the time to spoonfeed each and
> >> every citizen, nor should they.
>
> >> many people don't read the newspaper. That's not the highway
> >> department's fault.
>
> >> > I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
> >> > reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
> >> > that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
> >> > locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
> >> > else.
>
> >> Most members of the public have a degree of common sense and accept
> >> minority with ideological agendas that does not want to be confused
> >> and have no qualms of wasting everyone's time with frivolous
>
> >I'm specifically talking about the 80% who are opposed to increasing
> >the gas tax.
>
> >do you consider that a small minority?
>
> I'd like to see some citation to that claim, please, because I think
> it's BS.
do you mean the percentage of folks opposed to an increase in the gas
tax?
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/13247810-1.html
there are plenty more . perhaps not right at 80% but a substantial
number opposed.
again. remember. I'm not opposed personally to a gas tax increase but
I do favor tolls also but what I'm pointing out is that people often
WILL pay for more roads via referenda but they are not in favor of
increasing the gas tax in general - in part - because they just don't
understand where the money goes and their feeling is that they'll pay
more and won't see any improvements.
my premise is that if people understood better what the actual costs
are for maintenance and ops as well as new projects and how much they
pay themselves and for their area - they may well be more open to some
tax increases if they can see what the money will be spent for.
but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
have gone I believe.
Larry G
not.
And Hanco's attitude is amazing to me. On one hand, he's essentially
saying that more money is needed but when you ask for an accounting...
he says "go look it up".
I think you have to make the case. You have to give an accounting of
how the existing money is spent. No.. it does not have to be down to
the penny but it ought to give anyone who cares a basic idea of how
much they spend on the gas tax and how much it costs to maintain and
operate the roads in their area.
I just don't think you're going to convince people of the "need" for
more money just by saying there is a need... people have gotten way
too suspicious about the govt these days.
Larry G
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 20, 8:30 am, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The data I am talking about John is NOT AVAILABLE in Va. If it is in
> >> > NC, point me to where it is made available.
>
> >> I've lived and worked in numerous places and the budget data was
> >> available, for someone willing to visit offices and make _reasonable_
> >> requests and do some homework.
>
> >> However, public officials do not have the time to spoonfeed each and
> >> every citizen, nor should they.
>
> >> many people don't read the newspaper. That's not the highway
> >> department's fault.
>
> >> > I have no agenda here other than to point out that at least one of the
> >> > reasons there is not better support for an increase in the gas tax is
> >> > that most people do not understand how an increase will benefit their
> >> > locality and there is a suspicion that the money goes off somewhere
> >> > else.
>
> >> Most members of the public have a degree of common sense and accept
> >> minority with ideological agendas that does not want to be confused
> >> and have no qualms of wasting everyone's time with frivolous
>
> >I'm specifically talking about the 80% who are opposed to increasing
> >the gas tax.
>
> >do you consider that a small minority?
>
> I'd like to see some citation to that claim, please, because I think
> it's BS.
one more:
http://cpp.cnu.edu/pdf/TransportationToplines.pdf
page 4
note the question about how much people think the gas tax is... also
John Lansford
Seeing as how 80% or more couldn't get that value right, it kind of
messes up everything else. The general perception is that the gas tax
is "too high", but at least in VA's case it's hardly very much at all.
How about the other questions where over 60% of those asked thought
transportation wasn't the main issue, or that actually thought adding
tolls on I-95/85 would help, or even selling ABC stores! I see you
conveniently left out the question where over 50% of those asked
thought that the state should fund the highway projects, and not the
local areas like Hampton Roads and NoVa. Interesting as it was the
very next question from the one you directed me to.
All that poll tells me is that a majority of Republicans and
Independents asked don't support raising gas taxes. What a big
surprise there.
John Lansford
As the first comment said, that poll is a little broad to draw much
conclusion from. It's also in a "pedestrian friendly" website, and
conducted by HNTB, a nationally known consultant firm that likes to
push urban street designs that limit vehicular use and emphasize
transit and pedestrian functions.
>http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/13247810-1.html
That's not even a poll; it's a Republican talking points paper that
says right at the top:
"The following information was released by the Republican Party of
Virginia:"
and referred back to yet another Republican "NO TAX INCREASE" poll.
>again. remember. I'm not opposed personally to a gas tax increase
Larry, from as far back as I can remember your posts on this
newsgroup, you've been as opposed to raising the gas tax as anyone
I've ever seen. Don't even try and qualify it by saying "well if they
would just tell us where it goes" or "let's have some transparency"
BS; that's a strawman and you know that full well. You want each
county to be responsible for their own roads and let the state handle
the state/arterials, believing that "if the taxpayers want good roads
they'll pay for them themselves".
> but I do favor tolls also
Tolls don't do anything but help pay for interstate/freeway work, and
are just another way to double tax the public. State/local roads
wouldn't benefit at all from tolling the interstates, if FHWA ever
allowed it. There's a toll on I-95 right now; has that helped
Virginia yet?
> but what I'm pointing out is that people often
>WILL pay for more roads via referenda but they are not in favor of
>increasing the gas tax in general - in part - because they just don't
>understand where the money goes and their feeling is that they'll pay
>more and won't see any improvements.
>
>my premise is that if people understood better what the actual costs
>are for maintenance and ops as well as new projects and how much they
>pay themselves and for their area - they may well be more open to some
>tax increases if they can see what the money will be spent for.
>
>but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>have gone I believe.
As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
John Lansford
>On Nov 21, 8:34�am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 20, 1:52�pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> >> On Nov 20, 8:36�am, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > show me where that data is posted in your own situation.. It is not
>> >> > posted in Va.
>>
>> >> The data is in a place called a town hall or county court house.
>> >> Other data is located in a place called the public library. �Go in and
>> >> ask for specific data and they will hand you a thick binder for you to
>> >> review.
>>
>> >more BS guy.. give me a link for your DOT or State that shows this.
>>
>> >you're evading now... either provide the data or admit that you cannot.
>>
>> In NC you can contact the division's maintenance engineers and they
>> can give you the amount spent in each county. �It's not online though,
>> but I'm not one of those people who think every single thing done by
>> the government should be online either.
>>
>I think the information needs to be made easily available and it is
>not.
Why can't you contact your maintenance engineers and ask them for the
data? Is this not public information? Or are you so lazy that you
can't even write a letter or make a phone call?
>And Hanco's attitude is amazing to me. On one hand, he's essentially
>saying that more money is needed but when you ask for an accounting...
>he says "go look it up".
The numbers are there; I've seen some of them and know they exist. If
you want everything on the internet you can continue wishing, but if
you truly want the #'s then doing some work on your own shouldn't be
that big a hurdle.
>I just don't think you're going to convince people of the "need" for
>more money just by saying there is a need... people have gotten way
>too suspicious about the govt these days.
No, they'll wait until another bridge collapses, or one gets closed,
or something like that, and then there will be all sorts of finger
pointing made while the engineers and adminstrators point out that the
current money can only go so far...
Larry G
well.. I gave you the whole link to see for yourself.. was not trying
to hide any of it and I can send you more.. my 80% might vary more
like 65-80% but solid opposition which means more than just
Republicans.
It's a large number John.. it's not even close to a 50-50% split. And
most folks don't know how much they pay... they don't how much is
spent and in the longer run.. they don't want to pay higher taxes
unless they think it will go or something specific.
Even in areas where 60-80% are opposed to an increase in the gas tax
those same folks will often approve transportation referenda for
specific projects.
What that tells me is that people ARE willing to pay more to get more
if you tell them what it is they will get.
My past opposition to the gas tax has been precisely for this reason
also.
I'm totally in favor of local people paying for local roads and I'm in
favor of regional sales taxes for regional roads. Gasoline taxes for
statewide maintenance and certain primary arterials that cannot be
tolled.
what I've been opposed to is a process that is not very transparent
and not very accountable and I believe that this is the same reason
why more than 60% of the public is also opposed to generic gas tax
increases.
bottom line - I think there will be stronger support for increases in
the gas tax if there is more transparency and accountability in the
money and spending it.
here's a site that heads in the right direction IMHO:
Larry G
the numbers are not available in Va at the county level. I've checked.
There is no accounting for how much each county generates in gasoline
taxes - that's only done at the state level on a per month basis. On
the expenditure side, it's done a a district level - about 20 counties
and it does include how much is dedicated to the state as well as
maintenance and ops and new projects. At the county level, we do get
the 6 yr plan for new projects and that has essentially dropped close
to zero, less than a million dollars in the 6 yr plan out years.
but people are still opposed. As the poll showed, many do not even
know how much they pay right now and they also don't know how much is
spent right now on maintenance and ops...
I really do think if people don't know this stuff .. that they'l not
be convinced that more money is needed.
but it also does not help when a reason is given that bridges will
fall down if funding is not increased...and then when funding is
increased, the money gets spent on things other than the falling down
bridges... that makes it harder to get more money in the future...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>> have gone I believe.
>
> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
That would be rather difficult in Virginia, as while the Democrats have
a 21-19 seat majority in the state Senate, the GOP will have 58 of the
100 seats in the new House of Delegates, and the new Governor, Lt.
Governor and Attorney General will all be GOP.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Larry Sheldon
> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>>> have gone I believe.
>>
>> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
>> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
>> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
>
> That would be rather difficult in Virginia, as while the Democrats have
> a 21-19 seat majority in the state Senate, the GOP will have 58 of the
> 100 seats in the new House of Delegates, and the new Governor, Lt.
> Governor and Attorney General will all be GOP.
Damn! Another spend-our-way-out-of-debt plan mindlessly thwarted.
We are doomed.
Oh, wait. The folks in the District of Chicago are close-by, they will
just send some bent-noses down to traighten the folks out.
No Problem.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>>>> have gone I believe.
>>>
>>> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
>>> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
>>> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
>>
>> That would be rather difficult in Virginia, as while the Democrats
>> have a 21-19 seat majority in the state Senate, the GOP will have 58
>> of the 100 seats in the new House of Delegates, and the new Governor,
>> Lt. Governor and Attorney General will all be GOP.
>
> Damn! Another spend-our-way-out-of-debt plan mindlessly thwarted.
>
> We are doomed.
>
> Oh, wait. The folks in the District of Chicago are close-by, they will
> just send some bent-noses down to traighten the folks out.
You're referring to Washington, District of Chicago ... I presume?
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Larry Grossbelch <grossbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>>>>> have gone I believe.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
>>>> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
>>>> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
>>>
>>> That would be rather difficult in Virginia, as while the Democrats
>>> have a 21-19 seat majority in the state Senate, the GOP will have 58
>>> of the 100 seats in the new House of Delegates, and the new Governor,
>>> Lt. Governor and Attorney General will all be GOP.
>>
>> Damn! Another spend-our-way-out-of-debt plan mindlessly thwarted.
>>
>> We are doomed.
>>
>> Oh, wait. The folks in the District of Chicago are close-by, they
>
> You're referring to Washington, District of Chicago ... I presume?
Yes. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>>> John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Grossbelch <grossbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but the days where people are willing to pay higher taxes in general
>>>>>> have gone I believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
>>>>> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
>>>>> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
>>>>
>>>> That would be rather difficult in Virginia, as while the Democrats
>>>> have a 21-19 seat majority in the state Senate, the GOP will have 58
>>>> of the 100 seats in the new House of Delegates, and the new
>>>> Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General will all be GOP.
>>>
>>> Damn! Another spend-our-way-out-of-debt plan mindlessly thwarted.
>>>
>>> We are doomed.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait. The folks in the District of Chicago are close-by, they
>>> will just send some bent-noses down to straighten the folks out.
>>
>> You're referring to Washington, District of Chicago ... I presume?
>
> Yes. Sorry for the ambiguity.
So, do you think that they will send Buggs Daley and his boys down to
"persuade" them to do things differently?
John David Galt
> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
As long as the Democrats (and RINOs such as "W") continue to create and
expand spending programs rather than get to work chopping the existing
ones back to something even in the same league as what we can afford,
government will continue to be disrespected and quite rightly so.
Our tax burden is already well above what would bring in the most
revenue (as shown by the Laffer curve); any more tax OR borrowing now
just adds to the mountain of debt that can never possibly be repaid.
If federal spending is not cut NOW, by at least 80%, our economy will
collapse. The Saul Alinsky fans out there will be saying "great! Then
the poor and the environment will win!" But in reality only the
leadership of places like China will win. The rest of the world will
be starving and freezing, quite likely forever.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Larry Sheldon
Corollary: taxing and spending is not the solution. Taxing and
spending is the problem.
rsh...@gmail.com
> John David Galt wrote:
> > John Lansford wrote:
> >> As long as the Republicans continue to chant "NO TAX INCREASES!" while
> >> things are falling apart you are probably right; the Democrats have
> >> shown no willingness to tell them to STFU and go ahead and do so.
>
> > As long as the Democrats (and RINOs such as "W") continue to create and
> > expand spending programs rather than get to work chopping the existing
> > ones back to something even in the same league as what we can afford,
> > government will continue to be disrespected and quite rightly so.
> > Our tax burden is already well above what would bring in the most
> > revenue (as shown by the Laffer curve); any more tax OR borrowing now
> > just adds to the mountain of debt that can never possibly be repaid.
>
> > If federal spending is not cut NOW, by at least 80%, our economy will
> > collapse. The Saul Alinsky fans out there will be saying "great! Then
> > the poor and the environment will win!" But in reality only the
> > leadership of places like China will win. The rest of the world will
> > be starving and freezing, quite likely forever.
>
> > Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
>
> Corollary: taxing and spending is not the solution. Taxing and
> spending is the problem.
>
> --
lets wait with baited breath for more bridge closures because they are
unsafe
you are a fucking idiot
John Lansford
You don't cut spending in a recession/depression. That just makes
things worse.
George Conklin
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1hjgg59trgkfd13bv...@4ax.com...
Somehow the anti-road posters on the left, and Larry on the right, would
both have us believe that highways were created for the sole benefit of
Detroit (and now Japan, etc.).