Slashdot Mirror


We Don't Need More Highways

Hugh Pickens writes "When it comes to infrastructure, politicians usually prefer shiny new projects over humdrum repairs. A brand-new highway is exciting: There's a ribbon-cutting, and there's less need to clog up existing lanes with orange cones and repair crews. So it's not surprising that 57 percent of all state highway funding goes toward new construction, often stretching out to the suburbs, even though new roads represent just 1.3 percent of the overall system. Now Brad Plumer writes in the Washington Post that many transportation reformers think this is a wrong-headed approach and that we should focus our dollars on fixing and upgrading existing infrastructure rather than continuing to build sprawling new roads). UCLA economist Matthew Kahn and the University of Minnesota's David Levinson made a more detailed case for a 'fix-it first' strategy. They noted that, at the moment, federal highway spending doesn't get subjected to strict cost-benefit analysis, and governments often build new roads when they arguably shouldn't (PDF). And that's to say nothing of data suggesting that poor road conditions are a 'significant factor' in one-third of all fatal crashes, and cause extra wear and tear on cars."

7 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Re:on the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, no. The summary just explained that politicians choose new projects specifically in order to benefit themselves, rather than the people who they supposedly represent. And it certainly does seem to be that way. Remember the famous "bridge to nowhere"?

    The average citizen has no idea these new roads (among other pork barrel projects) are being buit until they see the bulldozers. It would take 40 hours a week just to keep up with them.

  2. Re:how about high speed rail instead? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah. We know that no American cares about using less of anything, the idea of life is to use as much as possible, but...

    Comfort? Being able to get up and walk around? No luggage limit (within reason)? No standing in line for check-in. You can have a proper table of you want and a mains plug. Use a phone (but out in the corridor, please). When you arrive you're in the middle of the city, not ten miles out and you don't have to stand around for half an hour in the baggage area.

    Train travel is a much nicer experience than flying.

    --
    No sig today...
  3. Re:Government roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Plus the hour drive to the airport, and the two hour wait before hand for security and boarding, and the hour drive at the other end of the flight to your destination. So, yeah.

  4. Re:on the other hand by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina. And both voted for the final transportation bill that included the $223 million earmark for the Bridge to nowhere.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

  5. Re:how about high speed rail instead? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Informative

    No dude. They got your joke. It was just stupid.

  6. Re:the us rail system is setup for freight and tha by Bigbutt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Honestly this is the big reason. The freight guys have control. When I took the commuter train to DC, we'd be sidelined because we had to wait on a freight train going by. Freight has a much higher profit than a bunch of folks riding the train to work and less hassle.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  7. Re:Government roads by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Informative

    The United States in 2010 spent over 130 billion dollars on new cars alone.[1] [2] Preliminary reports suggest the total for 2011 was higher.[3] Also in 2010 Americans spent $479 billion dollars on gasoline.[4] [5]

    There are about 250 billion cars in the US[6], using a very rough estimate of $10,000 per car[7], that's $2.5 trillion dollars' worth of passenger vehicles. I'm not even going to get into the costs of road maintenance.

    I would post statistics on fuel efficiency/energy use per passenger mile but I suspect that you're not a complete idiot. A 2002 APTA study put total public transit costs at ~$39 billion annually.[8][pdf]. Do you see how the one number is a couple orders of magnitude lower than the other one?

    I can keep hauling out statistics, but [8] is a pretty comprehensive overview of the subject. Among the other BTS statistics? The "hidden tax" I mentioned is on average 10% of annual income. Other sources claim double this number. As with medical care, no other country on Earth comes close to spending as much money per capita. That above $2.5 trillion figure is more than the US annual federal revenues. The US spends as much money on new cars annually as the national budget of Greece -- which has the 24th largest budget (by expenditures).

    In summation, given the roughly two orders of magnitude difference between spending on personal vehicles and mass transit, my previous statement was entirely correct.

    For further comment on Libertarianism, see here.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.