[TriLUG] [OT] TriLUGger on the news

Sat May 19 11:41:07 EDT 2007

You're forgetting, though that every state has two senators, but every state
has representatives relative to the State's population.

That was a big fight back when the colonies were coming together, that
high-population states (Virginia at the time) wanted representation based on
population. Low population states (New Jersey at the time) wanted a flat
representation.

Thus we have a bicameral congress with half of it based on population and
half based on the fact you're a state.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that NC gets better representation than
Montana - but it does mean that there is [theoretically] a balance in place
to prevent the big states from lording it over the little states.

I don't mind the idea of a toll road if it were actually to fund
development, maintenance, etc.

However, in most states (NY pops to mind) the tolls were in place to 'pay
for the road' - and were never rolled-back once the road was paid for.
Indeed, the NYS Thruway consistently raise tolls every few years just to get
more revenue.

The real issue isn't whether to have tolls or not, it's why the hell
government spending grows at a disproportionate rate to population and GDP.

I gebnerally won't drive tll routse because they're the 'popular' ones, and
they the ones that get the most construction delays. I can drive from here
to Albany NY (my home area) in 670 miles and ~$25 in tolls. Or, I can drive
it in ~720 miles and ~$3 in tolls. Guess which one I pick?

Of course, most people won't take the time to find better/cheaper/faster
routes, ad bitch and moan that there's delays, the tolls are too high, and
the road sucks.

Warren

PS
The 'Bridge to Nowhere' in Alaska got shot down after public outcry
WMM

On 5/19/07, tomed at bellsouth.net <tomed at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Here are some bullets:
>
> On a per capita basis, highway funding is already skewed towards rural
> areas. Not only in allocations of the federal highway trust fund (skewed
> towards Wyoming, South Dakota, etc.) but also at the state level.
>
> This can be seen in the amount of tax revenue in, tax revenue out. Tax
> revenue out in terms of the amount of fuel and other taxes that go into the
> pot in Raleigh from each county, and tax revenue in according to how the
> legislature decides to allocate funds via the DOT back to the counties.
> Allocation is based on a political process, not supply and demand. This
> leads to "donor regions" that pay out more than they get back, and other
> regions that get more than they pay.
>
> Wake, Mecklenburg, Durham, Orange are definitely donor regions at the
> state level. Worse, the entire state is a donor region at the federal level,
> paying for the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and who knows what else.
>
> In short (or not so short), us Triangle folks don't get to keep what we
> pay. It gets redistributed to rural regions both in NC and all over the
> nation. The justification for this is that rural regions have greater needs,
> and if you build it, needed development will come. The actual reason for the
> skew is that rural regions are overly represented in the Senate. For
> example, South Dakota, population around 600,000, has two senators fighting
> for its slice of the transportation pie, just as we do. We just entered the
> top 10 in population, so our representation in the Senate is very diluted.
> The same principle applies to the counties in the state.
>
> When Charlotte/Mecklenburg was seeking approval from the legislature to
> tax itself for transit, rural politicians fought it, because all monies
> collected would remain in the Great State of Mecklenburg. They wanted to
> maintain the same structure as always: funds collected for transportation go
> into a big pot, where they could get first crack at it.
>
> This can be an argument FOR tolls. At least you get to keep the toll
> money.
>
> Tom Ed
>
> At Fri, 18 May 2007 15:13:16 -0400,
> Tom Eisenmenger wrote:
> >
> > David, Steve, Kevin, and others have all made some good points - now
> > if I might step in and offer a different perspective:
> >
> > I live in Roanoke Rapids which is in one of the poorest, least
> > economically-developed areas of the state.  It is this way because
> > good-paying jobs are scarce due in no small part to the lack of a
> > decent transportation infrastructure.  One way to attract relocating
> > businesses to this area is to revitalize our local highway system:
> > for eastern NC this means to widen US158 into a 4-lane divided
> > highway from Henderson to Kitty Hawk, complete the widening of US64
> > from Williamston to Manteo, likewise US70 from Smithfield to Morehead
> > City, and US258 running north-south from VA to SC.  Many of these are
> > proposed DOT projects that have been deferred for years or even
> > decades.  They are perpetually on the back burner because projects in
> > the state's metropolitan areas, especially the Triangle, routinely
> > take precedence over projects in more rural areas.  No wonder - the
> > seat of power is, after all, in Raleigh.
> >
> > So now we come to I-540, the last of several Triangle projects to
> > bump the widening of US158 and others from the DOT's priority list.
> > This project is not surprisingly over schedule and over budget,
> > whether due to a spike in construction costs or to "mismanagement" it
> > doesn't really matter.  Now, Wake County is informed that it will be
> > 2032 (!) before the new beltway will be completed unless additional
> > funding is forthcoming.  While I sympathize somewhat with your "free
> > roads" movement, I do think it unfair for you to expect the rest of
> > the state to continue to subsidize your road construction whilst
> > projects needed elsewhere are deferred yet again.
> >
> > (I would like to think that the DOT has recognized that its
> > priorities must shift else the economic divide between urban and
> > rural regions will continue to grow but the reality is probably not
> > as noble.  I would also suggest that it is largely this economic
> > divide funneling economic development into the urban areas that is
> > fueling your rapid growth and causing all sorts of other problems -
> > can you say "year-round schools"?)
> >
> > I think the choice before you is reasonable:  wait until the 2030s
> > for the project to be completed when time and funding allow as other
> > DOT projects are assigned priority or expedite the project by funding
> > it with tolls.    You could raise additional revenues through taxes
> > but that means a certain increase in the gasoline tax which is a
> > regressive tax that hits the poor particularly hard.  You don't have
> > to have tolls as long as you're willing to defer your own project for
> > a while - imagine that!!
> >
> > FWIW, while my local Chamber of Commerce is opposed to a toll I-95
> > corridor, I have supported the idea as long as its generated revenue
> > is applied to the projects noted above.  After all, what is more fair
> > than those who most benefit from the building of a thoroughfare -
> > those who actually use it - being the ones who pay a little extra for
> > it?
> >
> > If it makes you feel any better, I do object to just a portion of
> > I-540 being designated toll - if this plan is to be implemented then
> > the entire beltline should be a toll road until the beltline project
> > is completed.
> >
> > Oh, and to further get under your skin - I'm typing this up on a Mac
> > Mini running OS X ;-)
> >
> > Sheesh - guess I'll have to wear a paper bag over my head to the next
> > TriLUG meeting...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On May 18, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 18 May 2007 07:05, Kevin Otte wrote:
> > >> Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> > >>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > >>>> How about a compromise?  Tolls for single occupant SUVs on 540?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm sure hybrid vehicles would be excepted though.  :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> --Jeremy
> > >>>
> > >>> (David drives a hybrid SUV, for those wondering what the heck
> > >>> this part
> > >>> of the thread is about...)
> > >>
> > >> While I recognize the humor intended by Andrew's statement, the
> > >> problem
> > >> is the tolls aren't for environmental protection purposes.
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact, all the slowing down and speeding up burns
> > > more gas and
> > > pollutes more.
> > >
> > > SteveT
> > >
> > > Steve Litt
> > > Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
> > > http://www.troubleshooters.com/
> > > --
> > > TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > > trilug
> > > TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> > > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> >
> > --
> > TriLUG mailing list        :
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>

-- 
http://warrenmyers.com
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on
with the prime numbers." --Paul Erdős
"It's not possible. We are the type of people who have everything in our
favor going against us." --Ben Jarhvi, Short Circuit 2