Funds for Highways Plummet As Drivers Cut Gasoline Use, (are tax hikes next?)

WSJ ^ | 072808 | CHRISTOPHER CONKEY

[babygene]

“Wrong thread?”

Yes, sorry...

[LuxMaker]

Actually now is the time for greater efficiency. Put in concrete roads with the right hardener and the roads should last over 10 years. Buy the concrete in bulk and this should pay for itself the first time the asphalt roads would need replacing. From what I understand though, states lose their federal funding if they actually implemented this due to the rules making sure our public roads are high maintenance.

[LuxMaker]

I forgot to mention to use strips of old tires to reinforce the concrete as well.

[backhoe]

Either way...

[wolf78]

If we cut back on driving, we wear down the highways less.

Actually, that's not correct at all. What wears down highways and especially bridges and overpasses (which are among the most expensive infrastructure items to maintain / replace) are heavy trucks. People need to eat, houses need to be built, leisure / tourism is not as essential.

Widespread economic depression will have the effect you mentioned, but we're not even close to that point. Therefore the only really relevant measurement is the actual condition of the roads.

[CapnJack]

Here is a novel idea ... redirect a vast amount of welfare money to transportation spending and see if the able-bodied deadbeats who were getting the free ride will now go out and do some work for the road companies across the nation.

[jmaroneps37]

Wasn’t in Boston where the rat administration has just admitted a problem over their red light cameras? They have so many of them that people now don’t pass red lights as much and the fines are way down. Don’t you love watching a rat get his tail caught in his trap? This could be another advantage for us. While all states will be tempted to raise taxes to solve these “short falls”, the first ones to actually do it will be the rat infested and controlled states. The contrast will be a bit easier to make. Let’s hope the GOPers make it.

[doodad]

I knew this was coming. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t. Considering the “windfall profit” that government, especially states like CA (hello Nancy), it is just sheer hypocrisy that keeps this debate even alive.

[doodad]

We've had a drought around here and the City rightfully asked everyone to cut water usage, restricted lawn watering, car washing, etc. The measures were so successful that the City no longer gets enough revenue to run the water department. Hence water rates are jacked up.

Same thing here in Atlanta. And all because the COE left the dam open too long and too much over the very wet winter. The other lakes are back to normal.

[gridlock]

The fact that the Authorities are not seeing the obvious, that less use means that highway construction projects are not so needed reveals the fact that they see highway construction projects as pork barrel spending, not as necessary work.

The need for buying votes and looting the public till does not end just because people drive less, after all.

[RJS1950]

They did that July 1st in Nebraska. This is what drive less and conserve energy means to politicians; more heartburn. It results in the politician’s need for TUMS (Tax’in U More Suckas).

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Actually, that's not correct at all. What wears down highways and especially bridges and overpasses (which are among the most expensive infrastructure items to maintain / replace) are heavy trucks. People need to eat, houses need to be built, leisure / tourism is not as essential

Who says truck trasportation is not elasticly subject to supply and demand. Prices go up, demand goes down. That includes commuting, holiday traffic, and transportation of goods. Huge amounts of unneccesary throw-away crap are shipped to outlets every day.

[wolf78]

That's the good news: As long as it's just the unnecessery throw-away crap we have to do without, there's little need to worry that the economy will collapse and the world will come to an end (other than some doomsayers predict "Aaaaargh, $5 a gallon will kill us!"). The long-term reality of expensive energy is just that more people will work building nuclear plants and drilling for oil and less people telemarketing.

But BTT: What I actually said was: The only relevant indicator is the actual wear and tear, not passenger miles traveled etc.. Because higher energy costs can also have the opposite effect: Combining two medium sized trucks into one large one to save diesel doesn't mean twice the wear and tear, but many times. Therefore I conclude that all the different, sometimes contradictory effects have to be taken into account.