Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Seattlest Pix 09Nov21
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
By coincidence, it was while we were sitting in the over-crowded number 14 bus on the way to work when we came across this gem of an article in the New York Times: "Drop in Miles Driven Is Depleting Highway Fund; Loan From Mass Transit Is Urged." Our sneering disbelief was interrupted by being smacked in the face by the laptop bag of the guy standing next to our seat in the aisle; the 14 is standing room only by our stop, the third on the line, from about 8 a.m.-10 a.m.
High gas prices are having a predictable effect on behavior, somewhat contrary to what "peak oil" doom-and-gloomers would have us believe: May was the seventh month in a row that saw a decrease in miles travelled on U.S. roads, with a 3.7 percent drop.
While most of us (particularly those of us who use mass transit or just walk) view this as a favorable development, the government is of more mixed feelings--because the roughly $.19 a gallon federal gas tax is dedicated to maintaining and expanding roads, and now they've promised to spend more building and maintaining roads (roughly $3.1 billion more) than they can afford. So they'll take it from transit dollars.
The Bush Administration fully supports the move, and have even promised to veto a bill Congress just passed offering an $8 billion infusion to the road fund, on the grounds that the transit fund is in surplus, so "borrowing" from it, according to the White House, "would not harm transit spending and would not increase the deficit."
Interesting. One would think that with Metro ridership up 6.16 percent over last year in the first quarter of 2008, according to the American Public Transportation Association, any "surplus" in federal transit dollars could be put to good use by, um, paying for more transit. But that, apparently, would be ludicrous.
"At the bus stop" courtesy of Seattlest Flickr group contributor Cloverity.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I heard this yesterday on Marketplace. On that show, the long-term fix suggested is to *gasp* raise the gas tax to about .22 a gallon. According to the "expert" on the topic, at $4 gas, that's inconsequential.
But, here's my question (and my wife's): If people are driving less, isn't there less wear and tear on the roads meaning less money is needed to fix them?
Either way, taking the funds from transit is a BAD idea.
With nearly half a over 9 trillion in debt, I don't really think this administration has the best grasp on how to handle surpluses.
On the other hand, re: "peak oil" gloom-and-doomers, Toyota just raised the cost of its hybrid by $500 because of the cost of the petroleum used to make the car. That to me represents the most salient aspect of the peak oil alarm: we've been relying on cheap oil for everything. As the price goes up, it goes up everywhere, not just at the pump.
However. According to a story on NPR that I heard this morning, Congress is not about to approve such a near-sighted fiscal move (but they're probably not about to raise gas taxes either). Sounded like the only option was to take $ from the general fund and put it into the highway trust fund. Knock on wood that transit doesn't get screwed over in the transaction.
As for construction & maintenance on roads that are being driven on less, I think the infrastructure maintenance problem has gotten so bad in this country that the traffic volumes aren't the issue. After the Minneapolis bridge collapse last year, hundreds of local governments freaked out about their infrastructure projects and now the feds have to foot their part of the bill for those projects. There's probably a little more to the story, but that's enough for one comment post.....
@4 -- You're dead on about infrastructure improvements in the wake of the bridge collapse. While I don't fancy spending lots of money on roads, the sad reality is that a lot of our infrastructure is crumbling, in no small part because state and local governments have been starved on funds by anti-tax activists over the last 20 years, which has also helped prevent further transit development. Point is, the roads are a problem and you can't just ignore them, but the response--whether it's Congress giving the fund an $8 billion life-line, or the White House "borrowing" from the transit fund--totally ignores the fact that we also need transit investment on a massive scale if we're going to deal with perennially high gas prices, let alone the climate crisis.
@3 -- A nice detail, mvb, I didn't hear that, and a good point to bring up: it feels like half or more of the crap we propose as "solutions" to problems are just a way of changing the exact same input. It's like electric cars: the electricity has to come from somewhere. And don't even get me started on the crap they use to make compact fluorescent bulbs. I have the Sunday-greens who buy those things have the good sense never to throw them out in the trash.
Oh man, those CFL bulbs! I was an early adopter, and just never imagined someone would call "green" a bulb with toxic chemicals in it that you can't throw away. I did in fact throw one in the garbage before learning that you had to dispose of them in the non-existent "safe" manner. That is one of the worst failures of the green/sustainability movement in recent memory that I can think of. Closing the loop on harmful chemicals is basic, basic, basic stuff, and yet there's no in-store bulb recycling so you can drop off the old ones while buying new ones. (Which is not to get into the health hazards of accidentally breaking one and inhaling the gas.)