Broke Counties Turn Failing Roads To Gravel 717
To save money, more than 20 Michigan counties have decided to turn deteriorating paved roads back to gravel. Montcalm County estimates that repaving a road costs more than $100,000 a mile. Grinding the same mile of road up and turning it into gravel costs $10,000. At least 50 miles of road have been reverted to gravel in Michigan the past three years. I can't wait until we revert back to whale oil lighting and can finally be rid of this electricity fad.
Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenance (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in a rural area with a lot of gravel and dirt roads. Gravel roads aren't so bad. They're cheap to build, but they require a lot more maintenance that people think. They get rutting and nasty potholes pretty quickly if they're not consistently maintained (and they deteriorate a LOT faster than asphalt). So I think some of these areas may be jumping the gun on thinking this is a catch-all solution for their cash-strapped transportation departments, counties, and cities. They'll save a lot of money in the short term, but you've got to have a real solid maintenance plan in place or you'll pretty quickly end up with impassable roads. It's not expensive to maintain them (gravel isn't expensive)--but it is labor-intensive.
A well-maintained gravel road isn't so bad physically. Rain doesn't wash them out as bad as dirt roads and they stay passable in about any kind of weather. The main downside is that you just can't drive as fast on them as asphalt. But, then again, you can't drive very fast on poorly maintained asphalt either (because of the potholes). So it's probably a wash on most of these roads (particularly since a colder state like Michigan probably goes trough asphalt roads a lot faster than warmer areas). But, if they don't have a plan to maintain them any better than they maintained them when they were asphalt, this solution is going to be a wash-out (literally) pretty quickly.
Yeah, it's the end of the world (Score:5, Insightful)
50 miles of country road (I'm guessing the pictures have nothing whatsoever to do with the roads actually converted) changed from paved to gravel, out of thousands in the state. Yawn. Gravel is actually better in little used roads, because it doesn't require nearly as much active maintenance, as in, driving over it with snowploughs when it snows, to be able to drive on it at all. These are, almost certainly, roads that didn't need to be paved in the first place.
This is complete non-news.
Extremely Sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that this is just the beginning of cuts that need to be made in Michigan, and elsewhere.
Gravel roads are cheap to build, cheap to maintain, and represent an extremely sensible kind of cut that does not have a major quality of life impact. Arguably they also have a rustic beauty, and look much nicer than a pot-holed, badly deteriorated paved road.
The poster makes a silly connection between gravel roads and whale oil, but fails to understand that whale oil and *paved* roads have more in common: Both are unsustainable at this time.
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:2, Insightful)
well then the cost for driving on that road are passed on to the people who drive on that road instead of shared among people who do not drive on that road. Sounds fair to me.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
A well-maintained gravel road isn't so bad physically. Rain doesn't wash them out as bad as dirt roads and they stay passable in about any kind of weather. The main downside is that you just can't drive as fast on them as asphalt. But, then again, you can't drive very fast on poorly maintained asphalt either (because of the potholes). So it's probably a wash on most of these roads (particularly since a colder state like Michigan probably goes trough asphalt roads a lot faster than warmer areas).
The worst thing the county did with the roads around my grandmother's place (in Texas) was to pave them. Before the roads were paved, it was a bit dusty in the summer, but the road was always good. After paving, the road got potholes almost immediately, and required constant patching.
Winter was particularly tough on the road -- since we have a lot more 100+ days than 32- days, I don't think they're built like the ones up north. We only have a few days when the water in the cracks can freeze, but when it does, the potholes start all over again.
Paving rural roads without a plan to keep them fully maintained is like giving a school a bunch of unpatched Windows boxes. It's not long until you're spending more time working around the new problems than you would if you'd just stuck to the old way of doing things.
Re:Electricity and whale oil lighting? (Score:2, Insightful)
Relevant video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ws2PpDw3o [youtube.com]
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy Administration blame game accusations (Score:5, Insightful)
I was reading the thread under the article and wanted to quote a couple opinions.
obamautopia wrote:
"Fact: Gravel roads are more dangerous because they are more slippery due to loose gravel and potholes. If gravel roads were superior for transportation safety - then why isn't the interstate and the autobahn merely gravel roads? Why not city streets?
Fact: Gravel roads put more dust into atmosphere as anyone who has followed the choking dust of a vehicle moving ahead of you on a gravel / dirt road can tell you.
Fact: Gravel roads require more frequent oil changes - thus using more oil and dirty oil filters to dispose of. Also more air filter changes. Also more fuel filter changes. Also more car washing. Also more tires. Also more windshield replacement and fabricating glass requires a tremendous amount of energy.
Fact: Gravel roads are less fuel efficient. In one study in Bogota, Columbia, fuel consumption was reported to be 25% higher for a vehicle moving on a gravel or earth surface than on an asphalt pavement.
Fact: Gravel roads wear out vehicles faster meaning more consumption to replace the parts, many of them steel parts which take an enormous amount of energy to fabricate and "carbon footprint" for the idiots who think anthropogenic "Global Warming" is anything other than a Leftist Agenda."
And another guy wrote, goomygoomy writes,
"I don't understand the problem. Why would you complain about PAVED ROADS, being turned in to GRAVEL ROADS? It's just CHANGE. I thought you all VOTED for CHANGE? Well...You've got it. Michigan, the Great Liberal Basket Case, is leading the way. As goes DETROIT, so goes Obama Nation. Aren't you IDIOTS bulldozing your towns down? This is UNCHECKED LIBERALISM. This is Obama SOCIALISM."
stoptherhetoric wrote:
"Nothing like a page full of ignorance from gommygoomy to start the day! People don't even take the time to read, they just spew their garbage! The Story CLEARLY states that Michigan Counties have had to revert to gravel THE PAST 3 YEARS!!!!
Do I need to remind you the last 3 years, W was President!!"
If you keep reading, you'll notice it all boils down to a huge administration blame game. Reminds me of other discussion boards I've seen...
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what happens when you continual elect democrats to office.
Roads go to shit but I'm sure there's no cuts in programs for illegal aliens.
Quite. Tax revenue is insufficient to pay for essential services - let's blame the Democrats who want to tax everyone to death.
Hang on...
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:2, Insightful)
They're cheap to build, but they require a lot more maintenance that people think. They get rutting and nasty potholes pretty quickly if they're not consistently maintained (and they deteriorate a LOT faster than asphalt)
Simple: we'll just pave them over with asphalt! Next problem?
A well-maintained gravel road isn't so bad physically. Rain doesn't wash them out as bad as dirt roads and they stay passable in about any kind of weather. The main downside is that you just can't drive as fast on them as asphalt.
Another easy solution: raise the speed limit! And I do believe I already said we'd just pave the gravel roads. Geez, aren't you listening?
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:1, Insightful)
Grandmole will be gone soon enough - hopefully things will start to turn around....
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:3, Insightful)
Broken window fallacy.
No, its not the broken window fallacy. In the case of the broken window fallacy, you are deliberately destroying property in an effort to spur spending. In this case, you are not performing a service that is uneconomic. To be fair, the poster to whom you replied should have more properly said that the drivers who had an interest in the roads should pay for its upkeep.
Re:Why is it $100K per mile in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
IT's a little more complicated than that, really. Modernization requires huge capital expenditures and you can't do that without a steady supply of contracts with which to repay the loans you took out to buy all the fancy new equipment, and, right now, we have too many uneconomic roads and too unsteady a source of funds to make such contracts guaranteed.
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not entirely accurate. There are probably very few programs exclusively for illegal aliens, but illegals do qualify for many other types of programs. Remember Obama's illegal immigrant aunt? She's living in a housing project in Boston, which is a service funded by the taxpayers. The housing authority is not allowed to ask about immigration status. This is a very common practice with handouts in MA.
It wouldn't shock me if there were services exclusively for illegals in either MA or CA. MA did hold meetings with illegals to learn how their status affects them. To me, that's a bit outrageous. ICE should have been invited.
Why aren't more roads concrete? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand why more roads weren't (and aren't now) made from concrete, rather than asphalt. There are very busily travelled concrete roadways near where I live, that are over a 100 years old, are subjected to salt, heavy trucking, and all sorts of abuse - yet require almost no maintenance.
In comparison, the newer asphalt sections of those same roads just seem to fall apart within a few years of being refurbished. For a few dollars more in the beginning, a centuries worth of maintenance $s can be avoided. Seems short sighted to me...
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you have sky high taxes and are STILL broke lies in your definition of "essential" services.
Re:In Santa Fe NM you pay extra for a gravel road (Score:2, Insightful)
Those hideous fences come at a premium too. (You know, the small branches strung together with wire.) They cost a heckuva lot more than an actual proper fence. Santa Feans have unique tastes - Everything should look old, weathered, and primitive (unless you go to those neighborhoods where everything waxes arty.) But to each their own.
Re:Crazy Administration blame game accusations (Score:4, Insightful)
If you keep reading, you'll notice it all boils down to a huge administration blame game. Reminds me of other discussion boards I've seen.
I'm a conservative and I have to note that those who say Michigan is being screwed by stupid socialism usually fail to point out that for the last thirty years, Michigan has been paying higher taxes to the federal government than it receives in benefits from it. So perhaps if Michigan's taxpayers were not constantly bailing out Republican farmers, they might actually have some money of their own to pay for roads with.
Really, there is a lot of willfull disbelief among my Republican colleagues when it comes to their own protectionism and their own socialism. If red states were as "free trade" and "capitalist" as Michigan was, perhaps we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars bailing out farmers, or locking out foreign food producers... Conversely, if blue states were as "free trade" and "capitalist" as, say, Alabama is, we wouldn't have gutted our entire manufacturing base in the name of free trade.
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really.
Public roads are paid for by people who drive cars, through registration, tickets and fines, and local taxes. If you don't use roads, you aren't paying for them.
If people are noticing that some roads are worse for their cars than others, what you will get is congestion on other roads. Those roads will deteriorate faster due to extra travel. The net cost will increase the cost of roads for everyone, not just those that now have to drive on inferior gravel ones.
At the end of the day, the users of roads are the ones who pay for them, regardless of whether its by buying tires or replacing asphalt.
While I believe that public roads are a necessity for today's world (at least in the US), it is better to buy asphalt and have people pay a little more upfront, than to leave potholes and have more accidents, damaged vehicles, and traffic.
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you can blame the problems of an industrial center in a deindustrializing society on one governor.
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll save a lot of money in the short term
You got me at "Save a lot of money," sailor!
I don't think they care about much more than that. Long term = somebody else's problem.
A part of the reason things are getting so f**ked so fast.
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
There does seem to some method in the madness. If the number of drivers decrease significantly, then maybe all that is needed is gravel? If the taxes from the people driving the road don't account for a significant portion of the construction and maintenance, then the road should go away. I have even heard of cities reforming themselves around healthy cores and tearing down the excess. Painful, but if no wants to live there, what else can be done.
What is really screwed up in when a city build tens of miles of 6-10 lane highway that no body uses, in the middle of nowhere, just to connect sprawlingly developments that are no under foreclosure pressure.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, how I wish I had mod points.
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay 28% tax on the top bit of my income, but pay less - 25%, 22%, on down - for the rest of it.
My taxes really aren't sky high. They're perfectly reasonable. And I'd be happy to pay more "taxes" if it meant my health care wasn't tied to my employer, in lieu of the pseudo-taxes I pay in health care costs now.
Re:Why is it $100K per mile in the first place? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you will never have to worry about this. (Score:2, Insightful)
These roads are rural. Not in the city. Lots of people seem to think this will make life dangerous for people, or cause more expense in maintenance since the cars will wear them out faster, and on and on. Seems to me one major point is being missed: My driveway probably sees more traffic/day than these roads, and I don't even own a car. There are lots of roads out in rural farm country that are used for 2 reasons:
1. Shortcut when the weather is nice, since these roads don't get plowed anyway. Those taking the shortcut are driving pickup trucks, no exceptions.
2. Tractors, combines, and similar heavy equipment. They go from field to field on these back roads. It prevents farmers from having to drive over each others' crops to get to uncontigous fields. It also reduces the impact on fields, allowing for minimal driving over them (surprisingly important when it comes to field yield).
Neither of the above really requires a paved road. Stop acting like it's the end of the world. Ever since I got to know some farmers, and how this works, I've been wondering why a lot of roads are paved in the first place.
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:4, Insightful)
well then the cost for driving on that road are passed on to the people who drive on that road instead of shared among people who do not drive on that road. Sounds fair to me.
You know, I don't have any kids. Why am I paying property taxes that fund the public school system around here?
Seems to me that we should just fund schools with taxes levied solely on parents - the more kids they have, the more school tax they pay. That way the cost of having and educating kids are passed on to the people who are having more kids instead of shared among people who do not burden society with their hordes of offspring. Sounds fair to me.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
1. You can't sue a state for modifying roads. If the state is in financial turmoil, there's no way you'd win the lawsuit.
2. The tax revenue stays the same value for some time before shifting down.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
But not quite. Gravel is a lot slower, if you're going faster than 15MPH on a gravel road, then you are moving fast. On a paved road you can usually get at least 25mph, even if it's bad. That's a huge difference.
And that's not even beginning to mention the car damage and the fact that you'll never have a non-dusty car. As one other guy in this thread mentioned, a lot of cars get damaged windshields from gravel roads. In my experience driving on a gravel road is about the same misery level as sitting in a traffic jam. There better be something interesting on the other side.
On the other hand, if the population really is dropping fast in Michigan, no reason to keep them maintained.
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Michigan resident, I can blame her for either her inability or desire to actually turn our economy around. Not a single policy that she has put in-place has helped.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the only cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any secondhand benefits non-drivers may receive are paid for--in full--in the prices of goods and services provided by those who pay for the roads directly. There is absolutely no need to spread the costs of road maintenance to non-drivers, and doing so only inhibits the proper allocation of resources among goods and services relative to their respective demand.
Re:Why is it $100K per mile in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful with throwing around the term "conservative politics" even with a lower case "c". The corruption, such as it is, has compromised everyone from left to right, top to bottom.
Also, bear in mind that the corruption is not just politicians, its also powerful labor unions, and voters who want more stuff, but want to pay less money for it.
I would say that the major problem is neither corruption, nor modernization. Those problems exist, of course, but the real problem is that we built a lot of stuff that we can't maintain in the long run. We have programs that don't work well under our system of government.
Also keep in mind, a lot of these other countries with "superior" systems are a lot smaller in terms of population and infrastructure than the US and are easier to manage. They also have relatively recent investments in things that have been in the US for decades. It's not exactly apples and oranges, but there is a significant difference. That's why I get annoyed when people point at the successes of smaller countries at doing certain things. Small countries, smaller problems, less complexity. Works on a similar scale in the US are massive undertakings, well worth the effort of devising the best and worst methods of taking advantage of them.
That's why I'm a big proponent of doing our best to avoid unwarranted wealth transfers to areas that do not generate wealth. You're removing money and motivation from the very people who actually make the money in order to satisfy people who get a vote simply for breathing air and not getting caught committing a felony. No issue is simple, but the best way to apply global taxes is to apply that money to programs that fix problems that everyone has. If you have to create a few programs to aid cities or the countryside because one benefits the other, that's okay to a point. But when your politics is what is sending the money, and not necessity, then that money needs to stay out of the hands of the government.
The problem is mostly politics, and that's why, in the long run socialized programs will fail. It will eventually erode the discipline and effectiveness of the people trying to run it. Corruption is only one extreme facet of that problem. Until we realize that we can't just throw around money at every little problem plaguing us since the beginning of time, we will be converting roads to gravel at an increasing rate.
Re:Why is it $100K per mile in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder just to what extend conservative politics,
Yeah right, as if conservative had anything to do with it. In theory, it sounds good, but in practice the constituents of the democrats get their share too when the time comes. Think of the unions and the card check. No, businesses and organizations are smart enough to pay politicians on both sides of the aisle.
BUT - it is getting better. Think of Warren Harding, the Teapot Dome scandal, Tammany Hall, or any kind of politics in the early 1900s. Ugly compared to what we have today.
Compare it to WWII when you could get a military contract by buying the right guys hookers. Even Chicago of today is way better than Chicago in the 70s.
Is there corruption still? Yes, unfortunately, but it is getting better. We need to keep pushing for more transparency and openness. When people can see what their government is doing, then it is hard for them to be corrupt.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
we need to go back to Eisenhower-era concrete road beds
And just how much extra tax are you willing to pay to land B52s in Mitchigan?
It's all very well saying "build better roads" but are you willing to pay for them?
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly wouldn't want to try this tactic anywhere out west though, where vast distances make driving on gravel roads much more of a chore.
In many cases, there are multiple roads to a destination. Some will remain paved, other will be gravel. The paved roads are used for longer distances, the dirt roads are more for local access.
This was the case in rural coastal California in the 80s. And I've seen plenty of dirt roads in Nevada, Arizona & Utah. But the highways and major roads were still paved.
Some drivers might need to adjust their habits. I'm reading plenty of comments here about "increased breaking time", 'I can't go 50 mph on a dirt road', etc. In these cases, drivers just need to slow down-- it's what people used to do.
We don't have to pave every single remote rural road, especially at a time when we're closing schools.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
You just get dirtbikes instead.
HTH.
We've seen this before...... (Score:3, Insightful)
And it didn't turn out too pretty. Read Bryan Ward-Perkins' "The Fall Of Rome and The End Of Civilization"......
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Rome-End-Civilization/dp/0192807285 [amazon.com]
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:financially sound (Score:5, Insightful)
> Yeah, Democrats, I'm sure that's the reason. It had nothing at all to do with
> the auto industry and loss of jobs or anything like that.
Yea, it has everything to do with loss of jobs and the auto industry. Let me keep it simple enough someone with a government schooling should be able to follow along. Democrats destroy jobs. The greater tehir majorities and the longer the time they hold it the worse the damage. Go plot the demographic trendlines yourself if you don't believe me. The Bluer the state and longer it has been blue the more seats it has lost in the last couple of Census reallocations. The Red states have been picking up seats. People are voting with their feet. I just wish the fools would realize WHY they had to move and thus not bring the problem with them by electing Democrats in their new home.
There isn't much of a problem in the 'auto industry' if by auto industry you mean production of autos. They just aren't being made in Michigan anymore, they are being built in Right to Work states with lower tax structures in factories where the root of the corporate ownership tree is in Tokyo instead of New York[1]. Of course with the recession and all, they are all feeling some pain about now.
Now riddle me this: With an existing industrial base and lots of experienced labor available, why does a Japanese automaker decide to skip Michigan when locating a plant in the US and instead go to the South where none of those advantages exist? Why do they do a greenfield project along the Interstate in the middle of nowhere when they could buy a closed plant in an area with thousands of unemployed workers with exactly the skills they need? When you can answer that question you will have taken your first step towards enlightenment.
[1] Hint, the 'Detroit automaker' bankruptcies are being filed in NY.
Absolute nonsense. "Just look it up" is worse than anecdotal evidence. Here's some of that: California has been growing in population at an incredible rate. The blue parts of the state are overflowing with skilled workers. The blue parts of Colorado are growing the fastest and gaining the most jobs. The blue parts of New York are surging while the rest withers. That little blue dot in Texas, Austin, is the most successful city in the state and its center of skilled workers. The European countries that have made our economy look embarrassing in the last decade are economically bluer than any part of the US. Blue presidents always correlate (I'm not claiming a cause) with job creation. The blue man group is a hotbed of economic activity. Papa smurf has the richest beard in town.
Re:I live in montcalm county (Score:3, Insightful)
That's really a great point - not all roads necessarily *have* to be paved. Maybe in very rural areas with few residents or businesses along such roads, there's simply not the money there to pay for paving. Maybe we shouldn't be spending money on paving every inch of road in the country. People can't seem to get their heads around the idea that governments (whether federal, state, or local) don't have unlimited access to funds. Sometimes, you have to find places to cut funding.
Would it be better to cut funding to emergency services like police, fire, ems? Maybe the schools? Personally, I'd rather grind up a few rural roads into gravel, than to cut funding for education or emergency services (although, that's probably happening too, unfortunately).
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:2, Insightful)
Newsflash: your healthcare is only tied to your employer because corporations get a tax break that you don't when they buy your healthcare. If the government leveled the playing field by making the taxes equitable between you and your company, then there would be no cost benefit to employer plans. You could join any pool of people you wanted, if you needed to be part of a pool.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and driving a bike on gravel really sucks. You get flat tires that way.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:4, Insightful)
If your asphalt roads need to be repaved less than a couple of decades after they were built then the problem doesn't lie on the technology (flexible pavement roads, asphalt) but instead due to being poorly built by incompetent construction crews. A flexible pavement road needs to have a impermeable rolling layer, a thick, tightly compacted gravel layer that must be at least a couple of feet deep and an impermeable bedding. The people building the road also need to make sure that everything drains perfectly, which means that the entire road and sometimes it's surrounding must be a drainage system.
So having that in mind, flexible roads only present problems if the road bed suffers from draining problems, if the macadame layer isn't thick enough or properly compacted and/or if the top layer isn't thick enough nor impermeable. If it's built with those problems in mind then it can easily be problem-free for around 30 years. On the other hand, if it's experiencing problems a few years after it's inauguration then you must take a good hard look at both the people building the road and the folks verifying that it's up to code, because they obviously didn't do their job properly.
Re:Why is it $100K per mile in the first place? (Score:1, Insightful)
Also keep in mind, a lot of these other countries with "superior" systems are a lot smaller in terms of population and infrastructure than the US and are easier to manage.
I keep hearing Americans make this argument, but it doesn't make sense. If you have ten times the population that needs infrastructure, then you have ten times the tax base. If you don't have ten times the tax base, then you are doing something wrong. And with ten times the population, there ought to at least some economies of scale. Even without economies of scale, how is it harder to manage?
The companion argument I always hear is that the US has greater difficulties because its population is less dense. Even this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Re:financially sound (Score:2, Insightful)
Classic case of the problem with intellectuals. Yes you need them but if you get too many of them they cause Socialism and ruin for reasons which have been explored in enough depth in the literature that I won't bother with a Cliff's Notes summary here.
Intellectuals cause socialism?
During the revolution in Russia, intellectuals (Intelligacia I think in Russian) were quite literally lined up against the wall and shot or sent to Siberia. What happened in the following decades was some of the most extreme examples of socialism. Government wasn't anywhere near democratic either.
Unless I am missing something obvious, I would say it is the lack of intellectuals that fuels socialism.
Wealth Transfer...... (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's why I'm a big proponent of doing our best to avoid unwarranted wealth transfers to areas that do not generate wealth......The problem is mostly politics, and that's why, in the long run socialized programs will fail."
And the problem with arguments like this, is that they almost universally fail to account for the cost to society of not having that 'socialized' program, especially when you add in moral obligations that society has deemed necessary to be considered a civilized nation.
For instance, tax payer money funding programs built from research here: http://www.nectac.org/topics/quality/effective.asp#longterm [nectac.org] in an inner city where parents would not be able to afford pre-school by themselves.
How many children will grow up to become productive with the program or without?
How many children will avoid joining gangs saving prison money/lives?
There are tons of studies showing that in some cases, preventative social programs, preventative healthcare, etc.. saves society tax money in the long term.
But usually people are so short sighted, that they say things like "wealth transfer", not realizing that they are saving money in the long term. I know the exact news sources and philosophies that you subscribe to because you used the term 'wealth transfer' (My father is firmly in your right wing viewpoint). It is a loaded term that seeks to distort the reality that social programs can and do save society money, and raise our overall prosperity.
And saying "why I'm a big proponent of doing our best to avoid unwarranted wealth transfers to areas that do not generate wealth" completely ignores any moral obligations.
The hospital that I worked for had to, by law, care for any seriously sick or injured person regardless of their ability to pay. That "wealth transfer" from the hospital into a service for someone with no money, was deemed morally correct, enough so that it became law.
That hospital, and my job, disappeared due to the large amounts of illegal aliens and/or poor folks that knew that going to an emergency room, having waited until they were very sick = free healthcare.
If instead, we had provided preventative healthcare for free to those illegal aliens/and or poor people, and offered other free healthcares, the overall cost to provide service to those people would be LOWER.
That means I would still have my job, and the hospital supporting 4,000 employees would have still been in business.
That is a micro example of course, but extend that to the entire healthcare system as a whole, and you can see the impact it can have on America.
We've been slipping in terms of education compared with other European countries for quite a while now. Would you consider tax payer money used to provide teachers a "wealth transfer" to those that cannot afford private tutors? Most likely not. We know that having an uneducated population is bad for everyone. Why can you not see other, proven, socialized programs in the same light?
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a licensed civil engineer, and I think your statement (and the one prior) bears qualifying. The choice between an asphalt road and a concrete one should always be analyzed by a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), which takes into account the up-front cost of the road plus the maintenance costs.
Yes, as any civil engineering project.
In Southern California, concrete will most often come out ahead in said analysis, especially given our traffic volumes and the traffic delay costs associated with the more frequent maintenance activities required by asphalt. We have concrete pavements here that are 50+ years old.
The thing is, that's not quite right. Flexible pavements, such as those with asphalt or bitumen-based rolling pavement, don't require any more maintenance than rigid and semi-rigid pavement roads. The only reason that may lead to premature repairs is if they suffer from draining problems or if the foundation suffers from excessive settlement, which is caused by poorly designed and/or built roads.
Moreover, there are also quite a few flexible pavement roads out there that are 50+ years old. In fact, there are flexible pavement roads built by the romans that are still being used up to this day. That doesn't mean all flexible pavement roads last for millennia but is a nice way to show that properly built roads do last a very, very long time.
In areas of high freeze-thaw cycles, an LCCA may produce different results. However, it should also be noted that the thump-thump of many concrete pavements today is due to a load-transfer failure between the slabs, something that in new pavements has been addressed with the inclusion of steel dowel bars between slabs.
Well, as you may know that "thump-thump" phenomenon is caused by the erosion of the road's foundation/base layer, which is caused by drainage problems. That is a sign that that road's drainage system was either poorly thought out/built or wasn't even implemented, which is seen by some people responsible for building them as irrelevant as they believe that the rigid concrete top-layer is more than capable of withstanding any action that may be thrown at it. The fact that the prescribed solution for a drainage/erosion problem, something that is fixed if you add a gravel bedding to the road, is more steel bars, which are comparably very expensive, leads to believe the people behind that solution are a bit out of touch with that problem, as they are trying to throw money at the symptom instead of simply fixing the problem to begin with.
That way of thinking starts to be the source of real trouble when you rely on the same people to build a semi-flexible or flexible pavement road. When that happens then you have entire design and construction crews not caring about stuff such as draining, subsidence, settlement, water movement or even making sure the rolling layer is water-proof, with the added inconvenience of, this time, not being able to fix it by throwing more expensive steel to make up for their poorly thought out design. That leads to all sorts of problems including, such as this case, blaming the technology in itself when the blame is solely in the incompetence of those being paid to do the job. After all, it's the technology that must be wrong instead of the people spending the money and failing at their job, right?
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dems have been suckling on the UAW teet too long for anything else to happen.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, that's not quite right. Flexible pavements, such as those with asphalt or bitumen-based rolling pavement, don't require any more maintenance than rigid and semi-rigid pavement roads. The only reason that may lead to premature repairs is if they suffer from draining problems or if the foundation suffers from excessive settlement, which is caused by poorly designed and/or built roads.
Like I said, LCCA required. Asphalt does not answer all pavement woes (neither does concrete). Your defense makes it sound like you work for the asphalt industry.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm laughing so hard at the "40 year life expectancy" that I'm about to fall out of my chair.
PLEASE show me two contiguous miles of pavement in the U.S. that's 40 years old. Heck, show me one that's 20!
I've been all over the U.S. and if the roads have one thing in common it's that they're utter crap. They're being repaired / replaced every ten years or less everywhere in the country that I've seen.
I'm sure your textbooks give you that four decade number but I've never seen it out here in the real world.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, please show me two contiguous miles of asphalt anywhere in the country that's two decades old.
I understand that if they're built CORRECTLY that they have an estimated lifespan of two decades. What I'm saying is that I haven't seen a single road crew anywhere in the United States that has that level of skill.
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:1, Insightful)
Because when the largest sector of the economy in the state is failing as rapidly as the auto industry is, there so much the local government can do.
Sure, they can create incentives to lure new companies in, and in many cases that has worked. But with as large as GM, Ford, and Chrysler are, there is a long way to fall.
And what's the matter with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we supposed to be shocked and horrified by that or something? If so, it's not working.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. They're not taking inhabited property by eminent domain, instead they're targeting abandoned houses and demolishing them to create open space. Net result is fewer abandoned buildings -- which are a safety hazard, and create lots of extra work for fire and police departments -- more open space, and healthier communities in the nicer sections of town instead of a few people spread out and squatting amongst the ruins.
The only people who should be appalled by this are American exceptionalist, growth uber alles neo-"conservatives." In other words, morons.
"Negative growth" is something we're going to have to start dealing with in a lot of places in the near future, and as a society in general within a generation. The United States managed to get very high on the hog by growing continuously throughout the 20th century, which is getting increasingly unsustainable and simply cannot continue. The 20th century (arguably the 19th as well) as experienced in the US was very probably a singular event, built on cheap energy, rapid population growth, industrialization, and coming out on the winning side of two World Wars. The party is over.
We need to look forward, and unflinchingly and without nostalgia analyze what's likely to work in the future and what isn't. Trying to force some sort of return to the "good old days" is doomed. The things that aren't going to work need to die. That means industries that aren't profitable need to be wound down, rotting, unwanted houses need to be bulldozed, and government programs that depend on or assume never-ending growth to function need to stop.
I am glad to see that Flint is at least making some attempt to move forward, rather than sit and wait for some sort of salvation that's plainly not going to come, as other cities seem hell-bent on doing. I have some minor issues with the way it sounds like they're doing things -- my geo-libertarian sensibilities would be less offended by an "abandoned buildings tax" that attempted to stick owners of vacant structures with the costs they're externalizing on the community, than any use of eminent domain -- but these are issues of implementation rather than overall intent.
Re:Easy to see coming (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a tough situation.
There's really no "good" answer to the problem. Large-scale deportation isn't terribly effective, and requires heavy-handed tactics that will inevitably infringe upon the privacy of law-abiding citizens, and cause a great deal of pain and suffering to those being deported (children in particular).
Xenophobia and racism complicates the issue even further. Many people in my area have the unfortunate tendency to label any dark-skinned individual without a perfect command of English (or a full-time job) as an 'illegal,' despite the fact that census data indicates a large legal immigrant population, while the various "crackdowns" that have been attempted have yielded virtually nothing.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:1, Insightful)
Cars are just one step above motorcycles. We should ban those too.
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
No-one said that taxes on fuel should pay for schools. Taxes on fuel should pay for roads. But you should not earmark _more_ budget for the roads when there are other more important issues, like schools to deal with. People can only pay so much tax. It makes more sense to reduce the burden in one area, allowing you to use what funds you have more efficiently.
Do you really think that the tax you pay on fuel pays for all the road building and maintenance ? If that were true, you would be driving gravel roads already.
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Michigan is fucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gravel roads are cheap but need more maintenanc (Score:2, Insightful)
When you compare 12 years of education to a the price of a car over time, education looks more expensive over time but really may not have changed in absolute cost.
Think of it this way: the time required to build a car (or most any other widget) keeps dropping, and bankers can make more money with the same staff than before, but it still requires the same number of musicians and minutes for an orchestra to play a symphony as it did when that symphony was written; police officers still walk and drive the same speed when patrolling a neighborhood; and it still takes 12 years to educate the average student.