Posted on 11/28/2014 11:04:21 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“I don’t want to say they’re unsafe, but they’re dangerous.”
That was how President Obama’s former transportation secretary Ray LaHood described America’s roads and bridges in a pre-Thanksgiving interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes. The high-profile story left viewers with the distinct impression that America’s roads and bridges are crumbling, and politicians were to blame.
First, let’s dispense with the notion that travel in America is a life-jeopardizing experience. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s own 2013 report, the number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges has decreased every year since 2000. This same report also shows that fatalities and injuries have fallen dramatically in the past half century.
With the hyperbole aside, we can now focus on the real problem plaguing commuters and holiday travelers alike: congestion. According to a 2012 urban mobility report facilitated by researchers at Texas A&M University, congestion cost the average commuter $818 and 38 additional hours sitting in the car.
To many, the obstacle in the way of relieving congestion is obvious. “We haven’t got the money,” said LaHood. “The last time we raised the gas tax, which is how we built the interstate system, was 1993.” While LaHood’s comments were meant as an endorsement of increasing the gas tax (something he never advocated for as transportation secretary), he inadvertently highlighted the archaic way our nation handles infrastructure spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
PING!
“Our Crumbling Infrastructure (TM)”
No problem...the stimulus already addressed this issue.
Remember? All the “shovel ready” jobs that were created.
Grifters, Crooks, and Skanks. Every Damn Last ONE !
We could get a lot more done at both the state and federal level if they stopped the libs from wasting transportation funds on bike lanes in lieu of car lanes.
Mental images of Nancy Pelosi and Rosa DeLauro. Need brain bleach now.
More and more, I think we should get the feds out of transportation. The interstate system is mostly built - there are a few new routes being developed; we effectively have a national freight rail network - mostly private; and there are private intercity bus companies, as well as air travel. The states can surely run the airports under their jurisdictions, IMO.
"“We haven’t got the money,” said LaHood."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s ArgumentNote that the 14th Congress had made a bill to appropriate funds to build roads and canals, the early 19th century equivalent of interstate highways, correctly arguing that such an infrastructure would be good for commerce. But President James Madison had vetoed the bill, noting that the states hadn’t granted Congress the specific power to appropriate funds for such a purpose in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I.
Veto of federal public works bill
And with all due respect to the family of the late President Eisenhower, he wrongly overlooked that the states likewise hadn’t granted Congress the constitutional authority to build the naton’s interstate highway system when he signed the bill to appropriate funds for building it.
One of the major reasons that we now have an unconstitutionally big federal government is the following imo. Constitution-ignorant citizens grow up wrongly thinking that the unconstitutional federal spending programs that they benefit from, like using the intrastate highways, is how the Founding States had intended for the federal government to work.
In other words, it has long been impossible to reverse-engineer the federal government’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers by observing how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.
My point? Highway funds should only be used for repairs. Another thing to consider is limiting the size of trucks, or else let truckers take total responsibility for repairs.
Interstates don’t fall under regulating commerce, where “regulate” means to make regular by removing impediments?
(Not that I’m endorsing continued federal funding.)
The gas tax increase in 1993 did not build the Interstate System. It was already complete in 1993
One of obama’s “ shovel ready” jobs occurred not too far from my house. It was a 1.5 mile widening job which was estimated at $5.3 million. The final cost after the unions got done with it: $$55.7 million.
They just recently completed a US government “urban renewal” project which included brick sidewalks, wrought iron lamp post and two 5 lane wide wrought iron arches. Total cost to the US taxpayer: $5 million.
The problem is that interstates don’t fall under anything in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I. So Eisenhower needed to first lead Congress to successfully propose an interstate highway amendment to the Constitution to the states before signing such a bill imo.
“With the hyperbole aside, we can now focus on the real problem plaguing commuters and holiday travelers alike: congestion. According to a 2012 urban mobility report facilitated by researchers at Texas A&M University, congestion cost the average commuter $818 and 38 additional hours sitting in the car.”
If the problem is not crumbling infrastructure but Congestion then Congress should do absolute nothing.
Congestion is by its very nature a local problem that has two distinct local remiites.
1: People should move out of the city(the best way to get more republican votes Mind you.)
2: The cities should improve their own transportation infacture and raise thier own taxes to do it.
Leting congress spend money on improving inherently local transportation is a violation of their post-road powers while giving unfair advantage to urbanizes at the expense of other people in other smaller better designed cities and committees.
The only bridges and roads Congress has any legitimate right to spend our money repairing are those major interstates allow military and economic transportation among the states. There could only be congestion on those roads if people were living around them using them for everyday living, and they should be paying to fix their own roads for their non-post proposes.
“The problem is that interstates don’t fall under anything in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I. So Eisenhower needed to first lead Congress to successfully propose an interstate highway amendment to the Constitution to the states before signing such a bill imo”
That is incorrect The interstate system is what they uses to call a “Post Road”.
Many of theses roads were built or established in colonial times to permit commutation and trade. Some of them still retain their original name such as the Boston Post Road:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Post_Road
The power exist is Article 1 Section 8:
“To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;”
What is interesting about this particular post road power is that it is an addition to the original articles of Confederation.
Federal courts early on have broadly interpreted post roads to include almost any road.
Interstates are state roads built to federal interstate standards for moving troops and arms
Well...inviting millions of illegals to come to America will certainly help congestion (eyes rolling)
James Madison based his constitutionally required veto letter for the public works bill on a discussion about canals and roads at the Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin had suggested adding canals (for moving freight) to Clause 7 of Section 8, the clause that gives Congress control of mail roads. But the delegates had rejected the idea as evidenced by the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s writings.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals [emphasis added], and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
Regarding constitutionally defensible federal spending projects, given FDR’s popularity he could have led Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution to the states before establishing his spending programs, the states probably ratifying them. Instead, he knocked the Constitution off of its foundations by leading Congress to establish his spending programs without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state majority.
Same issue with Eisenhower. He should have taken advantage of his popularity to establish the nation’s interstate highway by first getting the states to appropriately amend the Constitution.
I’m afraid I’m not following your logic. A canal is not a post road insomuch that it is not even a road.
As for the power of the bank I dont even see how that is related to the subject whatsoever.
A owning and running a bank is not after all required for or really even related to a post road.
Thank you for you patience with this discussion.
No, a canal is not a post road. But what they have in common is that they are both ways to move freight, therefore useful for commerce.
And speaking of commerce, commerce is how post roads and canals relate to the bank that Jefferson was talking about. This is because some of the Con-Con delegates didn’t want a national bank and feared that Congress could use its power to build canals as an excuse to establish a national bank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.