Unless you have been staying in your bedroom closet, or camping in the mountains, during the past week, you most likely have heard about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Considering the time of day this tragedy occurred, it is remarkable that there was such a low casualty number.

Over the next 24-48 hours, various media were unearthing all the relevant bridge inspection reports for this bridge, as well as throughout the state, and even extending out to the entire country. Clearly, the state of our transportation infrastructure is disgusting. And, for every year that repairs/replacement get put aside, the eventual cost rises sharply.

I am curious what a grass roots campaign could do to affect a change in national policy toward upgrading our infrastructure. What do you suppose could result from people contacting the elected officials from their states and demanding that any foreign aid be cut by 10% (or even 5%), with that money to be put directly into a fund for repairing and/or replacing bridges, and upgrading the entire transportation system throughout the country? We are already hearing talk in Minnesota of a gas tax of an additional 10 cents per gallon for such a fund. Interestingly, this same tax increase was proposed a few years back as a user fee; it was vetoed by the governor, who said he would not agree to it as it was not a fee but a tax; and, he then promptly did the exact same thing for tobbacco, raising the tax but calling it a fee. Now, he is accepting that those who use the roads should invest in them and contribute to their upkeep.

Anyway, I am looking for some discussion on this. And, I would really like to hear from any who take the step of writing their elected officials and offering the suggestion. It is time to stop building up other countries at the expense of our own. A Senator or Representative might look at the issue of trimming foreign aid in order to fix our country a little closer if voters are considering voting for an opponent.

We can fix this country without raising taxes; just redistribute the aid packages from what is already collected.

The solution is to get the majority of taxes held at the state level, instead of aggregated federally and then redistributed by Congress and various executive agencies. That's the mechanism by which nearly every major problem with wealth distribution in this country has come into play over the last century.

Instead of giving out free health care and subsidies for living welfare ect. Put them all to work to build the infrastructure train them. Kind of how the job core was started after the war and depression eras. There are alot of areas and parks that were built by them in labor camps during that time.

I was all for the gas pipeline from canada it would of created jobs and infrastuctire for many years and prolly would of decreased the acceleration of gas prices with the growth of new plants to process the fuel. But thats another topic
Either way it costs money and here in Texas the motto is toll roads verse a gas tax which I think will happen anyway. Converting existing roads into tolls by doing minimal improvement is an issue in and of itself. Meanwhile the biggest issue here is I-35 the traffic road conditions ect and without the federal goverment to improvement the city isnt doing to much about it.

I've been concerned about our infrastructure for a while now. Hurricane Katrina, the east coast blackouts, and the Phoenix gas shortage a few years ago have all demonstrated how easily it is to completely take out an element of our infrastructure. Can you imagine if the bridge collapse was a coordinated attack? How many other utilities or transportation routes could just as easily be disrupted?

What's the current total on the Iraq war now? One site said around $200 million a day. This is how great post-apocalyptic novels start. The nation dumps resources into a war on the wrong side of the world, and then is wiped out from the other side.

If I sound alarmist, the next time you're driving around a major city, try to imagine it with no power, and no gas. Then picture that across an entire state or three.

If I sound alarmist, the next time you're driving around a major city, try to imagine it with no power, and no gas. Then picture that across an entire state or three

Actually experianced this twice lately. in 05 post Wilma and again last december after the windstorm here in WA. it's quit something to see. but whats worse is seeing what a bunch of spoiled brats we've become in this country.
This is a crisis we are facing in every state. legislatures on the local and national level have been sticking thier heads under the rug forever concerning this and will now be calling for more and more taxes to fix the problem they created by ignoring it??
Not if i can help it. and i'm sure there are many others who feel this way too. tolls are not the answer either. it amounts to nothing more than another level of taxation that furthers the burden on people who are already stretched to thin as it is. it would be one thing if we could trust them to lift the tolls once the costs of construction are covered. trust them /LMAO fool me once shame on you fool me 53,497 times in the last forty years shame on the american people.
Sorry Mr. Washington we have let you and your compatriots down as stewards of your grand creation.
I think your 100% right Byte its time we banded together and created a grassroots lobby to keep them focused. look at what the AARP and the NRA are able to accomplish.

Because so much of our infrastructure comes under federal control (I-35 for example), the federal government must be held to account for maintaining it. Toll roads may be an alternative to an increased gas tax with those monies used strictly for road and bridge maintenance, but I would suggest a drive through Illinois and the Chicago area to those proposing this option. During a drive to Michigan from Minnesota last year in August, it seemed I was stopping every 5-10 minutes to deposit more change into their coffers; and, the construction through Chicago area made the weekday drive from North Chicago to the Indiana border almost three times the length of what it was returning on Sunday.

The number of bridges in this country that have been found structurally deficient during inspections is alarming. That the state and federal governments are dragging their feet in spending money to repair or replace these is downright scary. The lawyers are already swamping the victims of last week's bridge collapse, and the legal battles will surely result in more monies wasted than what would have been the pricetag of fixing the bridge in the first place.

I suggest again, taking a 5-10% "infrastructure tax" off the top of any and all foreign aid packages and using that money to rebuild our own country.

Instead of giving out free health care and subsidies for living welfare ect. Put them all to work to build the infrastructure train them. Kind of how the job core was started after the war and depression eras. There are alot of areas and parks that were built by them in labor camps during that time.

Yeah, because the people that need these programs the most - the ill and the single mothers - should definitely be out there working on roads in August.

Yeah, because the people that need these programs the most - the ill and the single mothers - should definitely be out there working on roads in August.

Nope Afgahnistan's the place to be!!:p

But!! if Clinton had'nt squandered all the budget surplus built up over the Reagan and GHB years. this wouldnt be a problem.

The infrastructure issue is directly caused by some very basic management issues.

How can you have a strong and well maintained infrastructure when the very agencies that are responsible have become the biggest advocates of not maintaining it?

Look at who is in charge of government agencies. The heads of these agencies advocate dismantling and taking power away from these agencies. This is the keep government off of our backs management style. The government is off of our backs as far as maintaining infrastructure but unfortunately the bridges are on our backs now.

Looks like the real question is, is the Federal Government responsible for the Infrastructure of the states within it, or is the state itself?
My opinion, it was the state's responsibility to maintain that bridge.
The Federal Government shouldn't become involved, unless it become a matter of National Security.
If the collapse had been part of a coordinated attack, then by all means, let the 800 lb gorillia that is the Federal Government in on the action.
If it's not a national threat, they shouldn't be involved...
And for the record, I hate traveling over bridges.

Looks like the real question is, is the Federal Government responsible for the Infrastructure of the states within it, or is the state itself?
My opinion, it was the state's responsibility to maintain that bridge.
The Federal Government shouldn't become involved, unless it become a matter of National Security.
If the collapse had been part of a coordinated attack, then by all means, let the 800 lb gorillia that is the Federal Government in on the action.
If it's not a national threat, they shouldn't be involved...
And for the record, I hate traveling over bridges.

I might agree with you if it was a state or a county road, but this was I35. IMO that should be maintained by the federal government. It's part of the Eisenhower Interstate (which should be Intrastate, but I digress) system, which was a federally funded program. The federal government has in the past withheld road funding for things like states not lowering the legal alchohol limit or raising the drinking age. Those threats go back many decades. It's too late now to say that the feds shouldn't fund roads when they have for a LONG time.

I know it's Wikipedia, but it's been a pretty good source for me in the past:
While Interstate Highways usually receive substantial federal funding and comply with federal standards, they are owned, built, and operated by the states in which they are located. The only exception is the federally-owned Woodrow Wilson Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge) on the Capital Beltway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Beltway) (I-95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-95)/I-495 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-495_%28DC%29)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_highway

Good link, thanks.

Agree, good link Sixee. And welcome back (/said with some trepidation).

I am all for increasing the gas tax if it can be specifically used for rebuilding and repairing our roads and brdges, on the state level.

But, I am still adamant that we should decrease the amount of monies spent building up other countries while our own is falling into disrepair from lack of funding.

Agree, good link Sixee. And welcome back (/said with some trepidation).

I am all for increasing the gas tax if it can be specifically used for rebuilding and repairing our roads and brdges, on the state level.

But, I am still adamant that we should decrease the amount of monies spent building up other countries while our own is falling into disrepair from lack of funding.

Thanks for the welcome back.

So if I understand correctly, you want the Federal Government to step in and take over affairs that are inherently states' business?
You don't think that the states should be responsible for the upkeep of the infrastructure within its own borders?
The Federal Government tends to be reluctant when it comes to taking money from one program and giving it to another.
It generally tends to just raise taxes, then put the newly raised money into the new program.
Money tends to equate into power, and the Federal Government historically is reluctant to give up power.
Also, wouldn't the Federal Government have the right to tell the states how state business should be run, if it has a vested interest in the infrastructure of said state?
I'm fairly certain that would be unconstitutional, but I'm not too sure.

Well when federal goverment creates Nafta which increases traffic upon the I 35 corridor for everyone living around it. I dont see where the state and local tax payers should be forced to shoulder the burden brought on by a national act.

shoot in texas they took what should have been 10 billion with a B in highway funds and squandered them on other things. Now they are having to look at raising taxes and toll roads tha are owned by foreign companies to fix our roads :( I trust the guys in washington more than my own state :(

Thanks for the welcome back.

So if I understand correctly, you want the Federal Government to step in and take over affairs that are inherently states' business?
You don't think that the states should be responsible for the upkeep of the infrastructure within its own borders?



Again, you are doing selective reading; I have stated clearly that I agree with state gas taxes being raised for the purpose of funding highway and bridge repair/replacement.

However, I also believe in using federal tax monies already collected for the rebuilding of our own country as opposed to rebuilding a foreign country. The Interstate Highway system is used for Interstate commerce, and both are managed on a federal level; therefore, federal government would not be stepping on the state's toes by acting to ensure the uninterrupted flow of commerce.

I do not have a link to share, so I don't want to discuss the Homeland Security angle too deeply, but it has been brought up in news reports that the maintenance of the federal highway and bridge system is a concern of the folks in that Department, as well.

Sorry if it came across as selective reading.
While I'm no fan of higher taxes, I understood and agreed with your point that a local gas tax would be the best solution.
I just wished to clairify your stance when it came to the Federal Government's involvement on infrastructure.
Since the Eisenhower Interstate System was originally envisioned as a way the US Army could move troops around the country, it's easy to see how Homeland Security would take an interest in the upkeep of the system, even though air travel is now the preferred method.
Federal Government's meddling in states' affairs has been a sticky wicket since even before the Civil War.
I just see this as an extension of that issue.
My question still stands: If the Federal Government invests monies into the infrastructure of any state, wouldn't it have the right to meddle into that state's affairs?
Think of it as a shareholder wishing to ensure the return on an investment into a company, if you will.

My question still stands: If the Federal Government invests monies into the infrastructure of any state, wouldn't it have the right to meddle into that state's affairs?
Think of it as a shareholder wishing to ensure the return on an investment into a company, if you will.


Where do you think the seat belt laws, speed limits, and .08 alcohol levels came from? All are a direct result of the federal government "meddling" by tying specific requirements into federal funding of state transportation systems. I am not suggesting something brand new here; I am merely talking about redirecting MORE monies from a specific source, i.e. foreign aid programs.

Yeah, because the people that need these programs the most - the ill and the single mothers - should definitely be out there working on roads in August.

Kel,

I think Nekko's point was there is a need and there is man-power.... I think we can figure it out :)

Put 'em to work!

At night!

Where do you think the seat belt laws, speed limits, and .08 alcohol levels came from? All are a direct result of the federal government "meddling" by tying specific requirements into federal funding of state transportation systems.

I did read the link I posted earlier, and I realize that this sort of thing has occured in the past.
What I'm suggesting is that it's not necessarily a good thing.
The Federal Government should not be involved in the infrastructure of a state. I'm pretty certain its not constitutional for Federal money to be invested into the infrastructure of a state, regardless of what has happened historically.
Raising the taxes, locally, should be the solution to infrastructure needs of a state.

"I'm pretty certain its not constitutional for Federal money to be invested into the infrastructure of a state, regardless of what has happened historically."

I agree with the underlying premise that the state should primarily be responsible for maintaining infrastructure (and also detest the federal government's withholding of highway funds to force state to pass laws the federal government couldn't directly).

The constitution does, however, give Congress the power to establish post roads (Art. 1, Sec. 8). You could also use the oft-invoked "regulate commerce among the several states" (same section) to support an argument that Congress has some business in state's infrastructure (at least the infrastructure connecting states). I have not done any research into court opinions in this area.

Bush dismisses gas tax hike for bridge repairs

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/bush.newser.ap/index.html

About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is sent in the form of grants to states, which then decide how it will be spent. Federal money accounts for about 45 percent of all infrastructure spending.

Also in that article:

The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_house_committee_on_transportation_infrastructu re) proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.

Proving my earlier point, the Federal Government's reaction to any increase in spending is to raise taxes, not to divert funds.