America's transport infrastructure

Life in the slow lane


See article

Readers' comments




I dunno. I feel like investing in a better road system would be a solution better saved for economic expansion. Right now investing in infrastructure would mean forgone resources going to the immediate reversal of our economic sich. It would mean less government expenditures going towards pumping money into a starved economy in lieu of more being spent on long term expansion. I don't think we should invest in the long term before working on a short term fix. But wutevs just throwin in my two cents.

Richard Michael Abraham

Americans Should Be More Worried About U.S. Gov. and AIG

AIG, American International Group, 92% owned by U.S. bailout is kept alive for one reason only: To pay U.S. Banks on their mortgage loan losses with taxpayer money.

Another freebee for banks.

When all this give away money catches up, taxpayers will have paid for all toxic bank loans through the facade of AIG, and then AIG will be instructed by the U.S. Gov. to file for bankruptcy.

Another sad joke on struggling Americans.


Richard Michael Abraham
The REDI Foundation

T Heller

@jouris: You assert a linkage between property taxes, tax-cutting and a crisis in infrastructure investment. That's quite a stretch; indeed it's quite a misperception. Federal transportation budgets have expanded quite significantly through the years, even being asked to support very costly urban transit projects as well as notable 'bridges to nowhere'.

It's not property taxes at play here. Highway projects are primarily financed from federal and state gas tax revenues, none of which have been cut lately. Local street budgets typically *do* receive funding through your local property tax, but that's entirely appropriate because your property would have no value if you couldn't access it. But disinvestment (if any) in local streets doesn't equate to disinvestment in interstate facilities (highways, airports, whatever) on which this article focuses.

That said, I entirely agree with you here: "Federal conditions meant that transport infrastructure priorities ignored maintenance (can't put a Congressman's name on maintenance). And priorities for new projects had little to do with real need, and everything to do with which Congressman had the pull on the budget committee."

T Heller

@bradshi, author of "I'll try to make this simple so that even Stanford grads can understand. Some areas of the US have very low population densities. This coupled with long distances means that it will never make sense for example to offer high speed rail between say NY and LA."

Population densities *between* two destinations have NO INFLUENCE on whether long-distance transport through (or over) those intermediate areas is economic.

Besides, no one (other than BD Cooper, I suppose) even has the opportunity to get on or off anywhere in those low-density areas. The absence of access points makes these areas of NO IMPORT. Capisce?

T Heller

@ jerzyjab "there has been almost no innovation of significance in ground transportation systems in the US - because the convention bus and rail industry and their consultants have a stranglehold on the field that does not allow support development and consideration of innovative transportation concepts."

Not sure that's true. I have a picture of an intercity bus that requires $585 in federal stimulus dollars to carry a single passenger no more than 40 miles. Now, that's pretty innovative, isn't it?



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

