ArrieS wrote:Really?
Please show me where this is false.
If the Federal Government provides funding for road construction and road maintenance, (which I have already demonstrated with my above sources)
Your proof does not support your argument. As stated in context you are only addressing 1% of the highway system “Approximately one percent of all public roads are part of the Interstate Highway System. Of these 47,000 miles of Interstates, 65 percent are in rural areas and 35 percent are in urban areas. Seventy-four percent of the remaining public roads are located in rural areas, with 26 percent in urban areas.”
Highways are not completely funded by the Federal Government. As I previously posted:
Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects.
Higher maintenance cost in urban areas should partially be offset by the gas taxes they pay.
According to your reference
http://www.artba.org/about/faq/ Based on data from the Federal Highway Administration, roads take up much less than 1 percent of the land area of the U.S.
I really am not sure what your point was in the relation to percentages of Rural vs Urban and the maintenance costs. If you think more people should live in concentrated areas with fewer roads with higher maintenance costs, it seems like everything would balance out. You calculate that 35% of the Federal Highway system is in 2.6% of the country, however, I’m not sure this is even relevant given that this percentage only relates to interstate highways. You can look at each state’s funding of highways:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ National totals for 2013 does not breakout costs between rural & urban areas:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... tional.cfm so your “proof” does not support your argument
ArrieS wrote:Then those funds aren't being provided by the local Government,
Then they aren't reflected in the property tax levied on homeowners because they don't need to pay for what they're using (outside of perhaps a 1/100 of a cent of income tax),
Then property taxes are lower, making homeownership more affordable.
Then if homes are more affordable, it creates more demand for homes,
Based on past history, the Federal Government is funding less than half of the cost of certain highways. State & local government and user fees cover majority of existing funding. Based on paying property taxes in 3 states over the last 21 years, they tend to increase over time. From 2005 to the present, my property taxes have gone up 40-50%. My property taxes include small percentage for roads although my HOA is responsible for the roads within the subdivision. You could also argue that with a substantial increase in the number of homes, the tax burden should be less as the cost of services are divided by a higher number. I don’t see an issue with demand here even though no new roads are being constructed and property taxes continue to rise; but local traffic continues to increase, apartments and homes continue to be built and rising prices make home ownership less affordable—all contrary to your arguments.
ArrieS wrote:Then making more demand for roads that the Federal Government provides funding for, thereby begetting the cycle again.
Show me the breakdown in logic there.
As economic activity increases, more people are employed increasing your tax base which should support funding for more roads without any significant impact on individual tax payers. Ideally, an efficient road system should also increase productivity by reducing transit time and better utilization of resources which should have positive economic impact as well as improving quality of life for employees.
You sidestepped the military issue and did not address it in terms of highways.
ArrieS wrote:Part of that economy can be dedicated to serving the military. However, would you agree that the Industrial military complex has gone a little out of control as President Eisenhower warned us about?
I would not agree as the industrial military complex is completely another issue from the highway system. See
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fh ... ndix_a.htm The map shows that the interstate highways as well as other roads that benefit the military installations and support national defense as intended. It could be argued that more Federal funding should be used to support these routes.
ArrieS wrote:Go ahead and look at google maps. Look at major cities and see the Federal Highway system just circle many cities. That only purpose is to help funnel people around from different sections. We all know the shortest distance is a straight line. If Highway planning was solely for the movement of goods between cities highways would be as close to straight as possible. But look at DC, Interstate 495 just circles it. Just to move people.
These are merely unsupported assertions. Try driving on I-95/495 between Springfield and Maryland at 5:00 a.m. on a weekday and count the number of trucks. The intended purpose was not to just move people. Geological issues, right of ways and prior development impacted how roads were ultimately designed and built.
See
http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital- ... story.html “New Road to Bring Vital Area Changes”, Washington Post, August 16, 1964. Excerpts (in blue text):
Metropolitan Washington’s long-awaited Capital Beltway, which opens to full traffic Monday, is much more than a mirror convenience to motorists who want to save a few minutes of travel time. Instead, it is a major factor in reshaping the social, residential and economic pattern of the Washington area. It is making neighbors of strangers, is compressing the distance between warehouse and retail store and is having a direct effect on the location of both.
“Ring Around the City”, Washington Evening Star, August 16, 1964. Excerpt (in blue text):
This magnificent stretch of superhighway is by all odds the most exciting and in many respects the most important public works project ever built in the Washington area. Practically as well as symbolically, it unifies the entire region. It will drastically change the transportation habits of thousands of residents. And beyond that, as a special section on the Beltway in today’s edition of The Star points out, its effects on the economy and growth of the region as a whole will be enormous.
For the first time, the Beltway gives trucks and other interstate traffic a convenient, non-stop, by-pass route around the District – reducing, in the process, the disruption of normal traffic within the city.
This shows that there were multiple objectives when originally implemented, not just for the movement of people. Population growth may have changed how the roads are currently utilized but they still serve an economic purpose. Certain businesses typically operate at the edge or outside the city limits where land is more economical. Fairfax county south of the beltway was basically country when the beltway was built—now it would be classified as an urban area.
In summary, your arguments fail to convince me of anything.