Dec 24th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Back Seat
I’m definitely concerned by reports of states that just want to use infrastructure stimulus money to build more sprawl-enabling highways. At the same time, the mere fact that “most” of some package may be targeted at roads rather than rails doesn’t necessarily make a package bad for rails — the appropriate baseline for these judgments is the current funding ratio which is nowhere near 50-50.
31 Responses to “Back Seat”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
And what exactly is the current funding ratio?
Do you have #’s that support your claim that the current funding ratio is nowhere near 50-50? I suspect the ratio between rail and highways is pretty close to 50-50 if you remove the $$ from gas taxes and tolls, which is entirely appropriate in this discussion.
I am not willing to say unequivocally that it is near 50-50, only that I suspect it is, because I don’t have the #’s. I wish for Christmas that Lord Yglesias would stop throwing out loaded claims with no supporting evidence.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Has anyone else noticed how rediculously nice the rest stops are in Virginia? They are these palatial slate roof structures of handsome aged brick–each one throughout the state built in the same opulent style. Each time I drive by one I fume at the waste. They aren’t even using the highway funds on widening roads, much less desperatly needed rail. It makes no sense, unless some powerful state legislator’s nephew owns a rest stop building contracting firm.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I’m not willing to say unequivocally that Jimbo has recently become the most thoughtless and annoying ygesias critic, but I do suspect it.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Shorter JimboSlice:
I’m going to challenge numbers that I think Matt might have made up with numbers that I have definitely made up.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Since at least 20% of road costs come from the general budget rather than from gas taxes and license fees, and public spending on rail does not reach 20% of public spending on roads … the presumption that the funding is 50:50 is not a plausible starting point.
And of course, since gas taxes do not cover the net external costs of the mixed public/private automobile transport system, the allocation of gas taxes to road construction that encourages driving would only be partial funding of the cost of driving even under a higher gas tax that covered the full cost of roads and highways.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Before we start building new highways or adding lanes to existing ones, we have a massive backlog of bridges that are substandard and in urgent need of repair. This is in addition to highways that are falling apart (exhibit 1: I66 in between the Capitol Beltway and US 50 in Virginia).
December 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
In places in the US with extremely high population growth rates, extra highways and existing highway expansion is not merely “sprawl enabling” but are also “move your car at more more 10 mph” enabling. Could you make an exception those places?
December 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
…and levees to fortify…
December 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
All I want for Christmas is to learn how to use google to find links that support my arguments, to avoid engaging in activities that I am decrying at the exact moment I’m engaging in them, and to come up with a broader variety of less lame and more germane put downs than just endlessly calling someone “Lord”.
Please, Santa?
December 24th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
scottynx, December 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
No, of course not. That investment will lead to development further down the road which will generate traffic to fill up the capacity, and since the average distance driven will rise, the increase in capacity utilization will be greater than the amount of new development.
The ways to permanently accelerate cars in traffic are:
(1) to provide alternatives that are sufficiently attractive and allow a large enough minority of the current drivers to get where they need to go that traffic congestion drives a larger share onto the alternative transport corridor.
(2) to charge people using the roadways when they are in high demand.
There is no conflict between the two, so various mixes will work, and indeed it seems likely that different mixes will be appropriate for different areas.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Has anyone else noticed how rediculously nice the rest stops are in Virginia? They are these palatial slate roof structures of handsome aged brick–each one throughout the state built in the same opulent style. Each time I drive by one I fume at the waste..
You think really nice, tourist-friendly public infrastructure is a waste? I agree with Matt’s general point about the surfeit of resources going into highways as opposed to transit, but I don’t mind if some of the dollars we inevitably do spend on the former results in “nice” places for people to stop and eat. I suspect such spending amounts to fairly efficient economic development dollars, as the impressions that such places make on outsiders help to form opinion. Virginia quiet rightly increasingly enjoys a reputation as a progressive, economically vital polity that has its shit together — a reputation that is likely to grow stronger the bluer it gets.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
That investment will lead to development further down the road which will generate traffic to fill up the capacity, and since the average distance driven will rise, the increase in capacity utilization will be greater than the amount of new development.
Although I don’t really disagree with the general thrust of this, it seems to me the reality is sometimes we’ll have to do both. Also, perhaps some investment on highways can be shifted to making the highways in better shape (fewer potholes, better surfaces, more intelligently designed exits and interchanges, etc.). It seems to me the problem with many US highways isn’t the lack of capacity (indeed, “build it and they will come” is the problem with increasing capacity); its the lack of quality. Europeans are often struck by the poor state of American roads. So, although I’m not a big fan of adding highway capacity, I do think we ought to have both very good highways and very good rail: much of northern and western Europe has both — and so, too, should the more densely populated corners of America.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Seems like Lord Yglesias’ supporters have about as much wit and intellect as the young Barron.
All I really want for Christmas is for Lord Yglesias to put some time and thought behind his blog posts and stop engaging in Plagiarism and Intellectual Dishonesty. That would be a Christmas miracle!
December 24th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I’m also all for nice, tourist friendly rest stops. It’s probably a good way for a state to make a good impression, and I think its worth spending a little extra so that the state’s rest stops don’t look like cinder block bunkers. The Virginia rest stops, however, really are over the top. They are built in a colonial style, with intracate brickwork, and other spare no expense detailing. Anyway, deluxe rest stops seem like just the sort of boondogle that states might blow a large infrastructure stimulous fund on while failing to fund rail or other useful but less sexy projects.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Damn! Another lump of coal!
December 24th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
We all know why rest stops need ornate decorations:
http://www.gayrestarea.com/
December 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
My personal choice, in the greater Chicago area:
Whenever a major lane expansion/refit of an expressway is done, public transportation must be included in the expansion.
Right now, all public transportation funnels riders to the downtown area. However, I and many people I know (a majority of commuters), do not head to downtown, but across the transport web. No public transportation (rail) supports such work travel. If public transportation had not only spokes, but also cross braces (like a web), there would be an alternative for tens of thousands of workers to get to work by traveling public transportation around the periphery of the city, as opposed to more than doubling transport time by requiring travel into downtown and then back out on another spoke.
In a previous position, I scoped out the public transportation options, as car travel was about 1:15 each way. Public transport would have been about 2:30-3:00 each way, requiring two bus trips and two train trips to travel. Using the expressways for public transport would have changed that to bus-train-bus, and put the travel in the 1:30-45 range, with the time loss offset by the lower cost and expenses.
December 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Lord Yglesias! Hahaha, I amuse myself so much.
December 25th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Re: Has anyone else noticed how rediculously nice the rest stops are in Virginia? They are these palatial slate roof structures of handsome aged brick–each one throughout the state built in the same opulent style. Each time I drive by one I fume at the waste.
Agree, but that’s a trend everywhere, even in states that strapped for money. Now I’m very glad they got rid of those noisome old highway outhouses I recall from my childhood, but why do we need toilet facilities that are more glorious than the Imperial Palace of Tokyo? A safe, clean restoroom and maybe some vending machines would suffice. Michigan has been through three generations of increasingly palatial rest stops since getting rid of the outhouses. Every ten years or so they redo the facilities. And that’s Michigan– the economic basketcase of the nation.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra