In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm not saying we don't have a deferred maintenance list 1000 miles long. We definitely do.
The question is will finally addressing that list en mass with a huge influx of borrowed money cause inflation? Almost certainly.
Will it be worth it? Only future historians will know.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
Government spending is not the only thing causing inflation. Global energy demand is a major factor as are supply chain problems related to Covid. There is already a lot of money floating around that is feeding an investment frenzy for single family homes. Much of that money is coming from overseas because other countries actually see our country as being more stable.
What would our future look like with crumbling freeways and poisoned water supplies?
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Do I have to repeat myself?
RX Reven' said:
I don't see how anyone could argue that the government isn't crowding out the private sector and that's a bad thing...nobody spends money as efficiently as the person that worked their a$$ off earning it.
This thread has been an exercise in extremes...blind giving vs. berk um'.
As the economist Art Laffer famously said "not all curves are a straight line" meaning that too little government = bad...too much government = bad...the best level is somewhere in the middle but right now, we're wildly, wildly in the too much zone based on historical levels and we're planning on cranking the dial to eleven.
I love all you guys but math is math (see graph above).
I thought the Laffer Curve peaked at 85% taxation.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
There is no way Laffer ever recommended an 85% tax rate.
He's a supply side economist and people in that camp think a small percent of a big pie gets you more pie than a large percent of a small pie.
Perhaps by peak you mean the highest level he studied when developing his model or the point where total economic collapse is eminent.
In reply to RX Reven' :
super thought provoking chart you've provided. We tried the spend your way out of a crisis and some of Europe tried the austerity out of a crisis. Neither seemed to work well.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Mitch McConnell is already taking credit for the projects in his state, he actually voted for the bill and Kentucky needed it. Strange bedfellows indeed.
There are plenty of studies out there regarding infrastructure repairs that are way overdue including bridges that should have already collapsed. We also have water works in Michigan that are unusable because of lead poisoning. We have been ignoring our infrastructure for years. Some of it is more important that building yet another luxury apartment complex in Dallas or Phoenix.
https://kxel.com/2021/11/10/benton-harbor-michigan-lead-pipe-removal-is-finally-underway/
Here is the issue. It's in the title if your first link...
"Infrastructure Bill Could Spur Overdue Road Bridge Repairs."
If you want to win me over with why this bill was necessary, the word "could" doesn't inspire much confidence. There are a lot of assumptions going on here...
1) The problem with the roads and bridges is lack of money, not improper engineering/construction/inspections/repair.
2) There is currently a lack of money to address the above.
3) More money will solve the problems.
On the face of it, it sounds reasonable that if there problems, more money can solve them. Unfortunately, time and time again that has proven to be inaccurate. I'll give you some examples local to me.
For decades, there were promises and tax hikes to improve an interchange that was a real bottleneck. Every couple years, suckers, err, voters, approved a ballot measures and tax hikes to "fix" it. We got studies. We got bike lanes. We got more buses. To be fair, if you read the fine print, you would know that you were not getting what they were selling. Most voters did not read the fine print. It was many, many years (and tax hikes) before it was improved.
We built a new Bay Bridge. Many times over the original budget- the "temporary" toll increases have not only become permanent, there have been increases on the increases. To build a flawed bridge that needed millions to fix after construction.
Not too long ago there was a ballot measure to raise gas taxes- already the highest in the nation- to fix the roads. It leaked out that Cal Trans had been instructed to slow and stop already budgeted and scheduled maintenance in the months before the election. They figured if the roads got worse, more people would vote for the tax hike to fix the roads- despite funding already being in place.
The same Cal Trans got caught storing dozens (hundreds?) of new vehicles under a raised freeway in Sacramento. They were buying unneeded vehicles- everything from Priuses to dump trucks- to use up their budgets. Some were a couple years old and never tagged and put into service- they were bought to use up previous years budgets. They did this while saying they needed more money to do their job.
If you read the article you linked, they mention much of the money going to a few states that have the most deferred maintenance. The also mention many of those states have already taken it upon themselves to generate revenue to address the issues, like gas taxes to repair bridges. If I live in a state that has high gas taxes and tolls to pay for my state's infrastructure, why should I also have to pay for those that don't?
Now, I'm not against updating our infrastructure, I just wish we would do it more wisely. If you have a leaky bucket, patch the bucket before you refill it. I'm also not a fan of doing it bass- ackwards. Committing to the spending, then finding something to spend it on. As others have mentioned, the timing is bad too, during shortages and supply chain disruptions. But also as others have mentioned, these things move slowly, hopefully we will be past all of this before any shovels hit the dirt.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Some governments are trying to fix the problem. Some aren't. Is it any surprise that poorer states have poorer roads, more deferred maintenance, and can't afford to fix it. If Caltrans would rather buy cars they don't use than fill potholes, that sounds like a problem with California. There is a reason I don't live there anymore. Here in Texas we have to keep making 635 wider to accommodate all the cars with California plates that are coming here to live in suburbs that extend out in all directions and all need new roads. We had to double deck freeways in Dallas and Austin. They are expensive. We have toll roads so we don't have to increase gas taxes. We even allow companies from foreign countries to build toll roads to rent back to us to avoid raising those gas taxes. In about 20 years those fancy double deck freeways will need maintenance. We may even have to triple deck them if the population here explodes. Roads cost money.
You don't want to pay for roads in other states? Hey, I don't have kids and have never had kids, but because I have a couple of houses I have to pay out a lot of money to two different school districts so other people's kids can get educated and play football in fancy stadiums. That's just the way things work.
I do agree with defining what is to be fixed in the bill, but you have a bunch of politicians running things, not a bunch of Civil Engineers. They make deals with politicians in other states and with the lobbyists that fund their campaigns. Who knows what parts of these extensive bills they are passing are being used to pay off who. That's the way it works here. It really is like making sausage.
Just a quick update on the LA ports. The news is reporting 72 ships waiting (up from around 60 when this thread started) and is likely to increase. They may be running out of anchorage spots near the coast since there are a number in the open water between the coast and Catalina (yes, there are islands off of Los Angeles). Circles are non-moving ships in the map below.
Also of note is that the rule about charging for containers in the port has a bit more clarity. The original news reports on this where a bit off. (Brace yourselves, the people reporting the news don't bother looking too far into things or have any idea of the subject they are talking about) The charge ($100 / day) is for EMPTY containers (lack of empty containers is a part of the issue). Now, I can see a bit more why some shippers may not be as interested in moving out empty containers.
General summary: Certainly does not like things are clearly out anytime soon. I would have to guess it will start to improve once the Christmas rush stops arriving (mid December?).
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Almost, but sausage tastes good and provides nourishment to people when it's made.
Politicians don't taste good, I'm assuming because while fat= tender old= tough, although I'm really not against experimenting at this point... But they also don't provide anything of any value to anyone except their corporate sponsors. Where as sausage makes people happy.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
You don't want to pay for roads in other states? Hey, I don't have kids and have never had kids, but because I have a couple of houses I have to pay out a lot of money to two different school districts so other people's kids can get educated and play football in fancy stadiums. That's just the way things work.
This is a false equivalency. Of course we all share the burden. The opportune word being share. But why should I pay MORE- high gas tax, tolls, and registration fees- then pay more federal taxes to fix states that didn't pay their share of the maintenance costs. To fix your example, it would be like you paying for your school districts and stadiums, and mine too, because my local government decided to spend the money elsewhere and/or keep my taxes lower.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
You don't want to pay for roads in other states? Hey, I don't have kids and have never had kids, but because I have a couple of houses I have to pay out a lot of money to two different school districts so other people's kids can get educated and play football in fancy stadiums. That's just the way things work.
This is a false equivalency. Of course we all share the burden. The opportune word being share. But why should I pay MORE- high gas tax, tolls, and registration fees- then pay more federal taxes to fix states that didn't pay their share of the maintenance costs. To fix your example, it would be like you paying for your school districts and stadiums, and mine too, because my local government decided to spend the money elsewhere and/or keep my taxes lower.
They actually did do that for a while in Texas. It was called the Robin Hood Plan. Property taxes were 'recaptured' from wealthy school districts where property values were higher and sent to poorer school districts where property values were lower. How is that any different from taxing people in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley to fix roads in Mississippi?
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
What was the problem with the Bay Bridge. Earthquake repairs? Is is earthquake proof now after all that money was spent?
You could say it developed "a few issues" after the Loma Prieta earthquake (I was living there at the time).
I think the concern is not that the "issue" was fixed, but how it was done. As in wildly overpriced.
Kind of like someone selling you (or realistically, deceiving you into buying) a Miata for $60,000. Should you complain? You do have the Miata you want!
In reply to aircooled :
I see a ferry boat and a crane and all kinds of generators with lights attached. I have no idea how you would fix something like that. That earthquake was after I left but I had a few friends that were in it. One of them was at the World Series that night at Candlestick Park and it took him over 8 hours to get home. I think he had to go down to the Dunbarton Bridge to get to his side of the Bay.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:
I have no idea how you would fix something like that.
Big floor jack and some Harbor Freight jackstands to hold it in place while you shot some screws in it?
Liquid Nails. Lots of it.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
They actually did do that for a while in Texas. It was called the Robin Hood Plan. Property taxes were 'recaptured' from wealthy school districts where property values were higher and sent to poorer school districts where property values were lower. How is that any different from taxing people in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley to fix roads in Mississippi?
It's not that different in principal- both are extremely questionable in my opinion. Was it really called the Robin Hood Plan? Jeez, no shame there.
In practice, it's very different, and an affront to state sovereignty. Citizens of each state get to decide how each state is run and how things are prioritized. It is not the job of the federal government to balance things out. Imagine if the states were told at our country's founding that we would have "Robin Hood Plans" to take from some states to give to others. We would not have a United States.
On the Bay Bridge, the original estimate to retrofit after Loma Prieta was $250 million. For all seven Bay Area bridges. The cost went up and up, until they decided on a fancier design for $1.3 billion. That $1.3 billion dollar bridge cost $6.5 billion to build. But it was severely flawed. Bad bolts and bad welds resulted in a bridge arguably less safe than the one it replaced. After billions more to fix it, the actual cost is expected to me around $13 billion. Keep in mind, this is just the Eastern span. For comparison sake, the entire bridge- tunnel, transbay terminal, everything- originally cost $1.5 billion in today's dollars.
They did fix it. I don't remember watching how (but I suspect some very large cranes)
It was pretty strange going over it after the fix (top level is towards SF). There was one suspiciously new / clean section on the bridge, and you tended to really pay attention to the expansion joints for that section!
Of note, there were cars on the bridge when it fell (I was in my studio apartment watching my Corvair literally "dance" in the attached garage in southern SF). I think maybe only one (or a few?) went into the void, maybe 1 killed? Certainly not as bad as it might have been.
In reply to aircooled :
I like the Miata analogy, and it gets even better when you put the real numbers to it. How much is a nice Miata? Let's say $10k. That $10k Miata would have cost $260,000 to buy and another $260,000 to make it driveable.
OK, based on the above numbers. Thanks, I was not aware of those, I was gone by then. (I see you posted something similar, I will leave this anyway. Someones math is off a bit, but it doesn't matter, absurd either way):
Your Miata needs engine work, it will cost $2500 dollars. So, you decide, what the heck, I will just get a new Miata (MX5 
). You go to the only dealership in the state (weird I know), they convince you to buy a new MX5 for super bargain price of $13,000! All right!, you go for it, but when you go to pay. You have already signed to buy, (stupid I know, that that is how these dealerships work) it is now $65,000!!! You have no choice, so you buy.... but..... the new car has issues and you have no warrantee (again, how these dealerships work) and you need a car, the repairs are $60,000!
Keep in mind, this is the same dealership that has sold your family all of its cars (they have no choice either), and they have been similarly (maybe not quite as bad) completely reamed in their deals!
BTW you cannot go to anyone to complain about the dealership, because it is run by the federal government and there is no one to complain to!!
Enjoy your new car payment....
... and the next time you need a new car... you go straight to that same dealership...
The Miata analogy works a bit for the infrastructure situation also:
Your family (big extended family, you are Mr Money Bags) has a lot fo Miata's and needs new ones because the rings are shot etc. Not because the Miata's are inherently bad or unreliable, but because in most cases, they only changed the oil every 25,000 miles!
So, the plan is to buy them all new Miata's (MX5s).
Problem solved?
(P.S. I hope this is not the case, but I highly suspect it is.)
Boost_Crazy said:
In practice, it's very different, and an affront to state sovereignty. Citizens of each state get to s run and how things are prioritized. It is not the job of the federal government to balance things out. Imagine if the states were told at our country's founding that we would have "Robin Hood Plans" to take from some states to give to others. We would not have a United States.
No. You'd have Canada.
Streetwiseguy said:Boost_Crazy said:
In practice, it's very different, and an affront to state sovereignty. Citizens of each state get to s run and how things are prioritized. It is not the job of the federal government to balance things out. Imagine if the states were told at our country's founding that we would have "Robin Hood Plans" to take from some states to give to others. We would not have a United States.
No. You'd have Canada.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
They actually did do that for a while in Texas. It was called the Robin Hood Plan. Property taxes were 'recaptured' from wealthy school districts where property values were higher and sent to poorer school districts where property values were lower. How is that any different from taxing people in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley to fix roads in Mississippi?
It's not that different in principal- both are extremely questionable in my opinion. Was it really called the Robin Hood Plan? Jeez, no shame there.
In practice, it's very different, and an affront to state sovereignty. Citizens of each state get to decide how each state is run and how things are prioritized. It is not the job of the federal government to balance things out. Imagine if the states were told at our country's founding that we would have "Robin Hood Plans" to take from some states to give to others. We would not have a United States.
On the Bay Bridge, the original estimate to retrofit after Loma Prieta was $250 million. For all seven Bay Area bridges. The cost went up and up, until they decided on a fancier design for $1.3 billion. That $1.3 billion dollar bridge cost $6.5 billion to build. But it was severely flawed. Bad bolts and bad welds resulted in a bridge arguably less safe than the one it replaced. After billions more to fix it, the actual cost is expected to me around $13 billion. Keep in mind, this is just the Eastern span. For comparison sake, the entire bridge- tunnel, transbay terminal, everything- originally cost $1.5 billion in today's dollars.
I'm a good cook and wrench well - will you marry me
If one state is better managed than others, they get rewarded with talent flooding in while others suffer a brain drain until they get their E36 M3 together - it's called competition, it's a good thing.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
