Horizontal/Subsurface Infrastructure & Transportation

With regard to transportation infrastructure investment, the tireless efforts of our administration underscore the widely-held but never adequately resolved notion that transportation investments can and does influence the economic development of any region or nation. Indeed, transportation contributes largely to GDP, it consumes a large amount of goods and services, employs a large number of people, and generates revenue to federal, state and local governments. It has been reported by the USDOT that every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure generates more than $2 billion in economic activity and creates up to 42,000 jobs. However, questions remain regarding the strength and nature of this connection. First, it is sought to ascertain that the relationship is not merely one of correlation but one of causation. The economy and transportation have a reciprocal relationship -- increased economic output leads to increased amount of travel, while increased travel leads to higher economic output. But which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and what really, is the best way to model this simultaneous relationship? Secondly, investments must not only benefit high income groups; so, there are also the social justice concerns. It is preferred that transportation investments contribute to reduced income inequality. Third, it is sought to ascertain the effect of regional advancement on the nature of the transportation-economy relationship: the link may be stronger at less developed economies compared to highly developed economies.  Thirdly, the strength of the link may be different depending on the investment project size: in general, economic development impacts are considerable when the project is large in magnitude and scope; thus, small projects are deemed unsuitable because the impacts may not be so visible. But how small is too small? These issues are worthy of an interesting discussion.

------------------------------
Samuel Labi Ph.D., M.ASCE
Associate Professor
Purdue University

------------------------------

The Government has implemented countless programs aimed at improving social justice concerns, and these sometimes have come at the expense of infrastructure programs.  Many states General Funds' budgets have used funds meant for infrastructure projects as a means to fund social programs.  If governments, both state and Federal, can't find a way to limit their infrastructure funds to infrastructure projects, then this nation may never reach the level of infrastructure quality it desires.  

Infrastructure efforts, as well as other government programs, will always carry some political slanting, as politicians lobby for spending those funds in their respective/representative districts, but the practice of allowing those dedicated funds to be spent on non-infrastructure programs must be stopped.  The size of project that is ultimately funded, should be left in the hands of local jurisdictions.  Governments have small and/or disadvantaged business goals, which can also be used to play a role in determining how projects of varying sizes are funded.


------------------------------
Eric Sosnowski P.E., M.ASCE
Operations Manager
Bluffton SC
------------------------------

Totally agree.  I worked at a State Transportation Department my entire career.  Over the course of my career, I saw the evolution of Transportation policies that redirected Transportation dollars away from transportation.  This started with ISTEA ( The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).  This act actually increased Federal Transportation Funding, but also added stifiling environmental and so-called social regulations and policies, which significantly increased the lead time to get a project under construction, thus significantly increasing the project cost.  Also, the Transportation Enhancement Program and other similar programs diverted scarce transportation dollars away from transportation to quality of life projects.  All well and good, but not the roll of transportation.  I referred to these programs as "Vampire" Programs, because they suck the life's blood out of the core transportation programs.  This practice is evermore popular politically, because it provides a source of funds to "do nice things" back home.  Until adequate funding is provided to maintain, build and enhance our nations transportation network (Highways and Transit), we need to get back to basics.

------------------------------
Donald Vaughn P.E., M.ASCE
CHIEF ENGINEER (Retired)
Alabama State Of
Montgomery AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2017 10:05
From: Eric Sosnowski
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

The Government has implemented countless programs aimed at improving social justice concerns, and these sometimes have come at the expense of infrastructure programs.  Many states General Funds' budgets have used funds meant for infrastructure projects as a means to fund social programs.  If governments, both state and Federal, can't find a way to limit their infrastructure funds to infrastructure projects, then this nation may never reach the level of infrastructure quality it desires.  

Infrastructure efforts, as well as other government programs, will always carry some political slanting, as politicians lobby for spending those funds in their respective/representative districts, but the practice of allowing those dedicated funds to be spent on non-infrastructure programs must be stopped.  The size of project that is ultimately funded, should be left in the hands of local jurisdictions.  Governments have small and/or disadvantaged business goals, which can also be used to play a role in determining how projects of varying sizes are funded.


------------------------------
Eric Sosnowski P.E., M.ASCE
Operations Manager
Bluffton SC
------------------------------

I'd be hard pressed to say the transportation enhancements (e.g., pedestrian & bike facilities) funded under ISTEA were without value (see http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(106)_FR.pdf).   There is certainly potential to ease highway congestion by providing some sort of alternative.   Bike and pedestrian travel benefits motorists by leaving more parking available.   And perhaps most importantly, bike and ped enhancements improve quality of life.   For proof, try comparing housing costs in places with good bike and ped enhancements vs. places without.

------------------------------
David Cooper P.E., M.ASCE
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:10
From: Donald Vaughn
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

Totally agree.  I worked at a State Transportation Department my entire career.  Over the course of my career, I saw the evolution of Transportation policies that redirected Transportation dollars away from transportation.  This started with ISTEA ( The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).  This act actually increased Federal Transportation Funding, but also added stifiling environmental and so-called social regulations and policies, which significantly increased the lead time to get a project under construction, thus significantly increasing the project cost.  Also, the Transportation Enhancement Program and other similar programs diverted scarce transportation dollars away from transportation to quality of life projects.  All well and good, but not the roll of transportation.  I referred to these programs as "Vampire" Programs, because they suck the life's blood out of the core transportation programs.  This practice is evermore popular politically, because it provides a source of funds to "do nice things" back home.  Until adequate funding is provided to maintain, build and enhance our nations transportation network (Highways and Transit), we need to get back to basics.

------------------------------
Donald Vaughn P.E., M.ASCE
CHIEF ENGINEER (Retired)
Alabama State Of
Montgomery AL
------------------------------

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2017 10:05
From: Eric Sosnowski
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

The Government has implemented countless programs aimed at improving social justice concerns, and these sometimes have come at the expense of infrastructure programs.  Many states General Funds' budgets have used funds meant for infrastructure projects as a means to fund social programs.  If governments, both state and Federal, can't find a way to limit their infrastructure funds to infrastructure projects, then this nation may never reach the level of infrastructure quality it desires.  

Infrastructure efforts, as well as other government programs, will always carry some political slanting, as politicians lobby for spending those funds in their respective/representative districts, but the practice of allowing those dedicated funds to be spent on non-infrastructure programs must be stopped.  The size of project that is ultimately funded, should be left in the hands of local jurisdictions.  Governments have small and/or disadvantaged business goals, which can also be used to play a role in determining how projects of varying sizes are funded.


------------------------------
Eric Sosnowski P.E., M.ASCE
Operations Manager
Bluffton SC
------------------------------

Transportation is circulation.  There are many levels of "entity".  A person, sports team, city, state, nation, engineers; on and on.  Entities depend on circulation.  The robustness of that circulation defines an upper limit to the relative health of that entity.  If the transportation network is not good the health of a geographic entity suffers in many ways, from increased repairs to vehicles, an unwillingness to commute, even analysis in prospective value adding business relocation decisions.  Forward looking entity leaders consider the increase in incoming capital and taxes with better roads, backward looking (or stagnant) entity "leaders" look at how much they can afford with past conditions.  It's all relative.

------------------------------
Stephen Hemphill P.E., M.ASCE
Semi-Retired
Rio Rancho NM
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

I agree with the comments made up to this point and I want to add the piece that causes of confusion; who is paying for what?
For the first twenty years 1921 to 1941 the US was basically just trying to "get out of the mud". Up until the WPA and State Highway Commissions started to grade up these so-called roads, they were just cart paths with little to no grading, drainage or surfacing. The post war period opened more commerce, advanced engineering and public demands for better roads and bridges. I was part of the large block interstate highway work force from the 1950's to the end in of the era in the 1980's. It was in the 1980's that I noticed the breakup of pavements on nearly all of the road constructed in the 1950s. Up until this point the benefits and the costs were enjoyed and paid by the public with no thought of what was causing the pavement breakup. The average highway user thought the road surface was simply old and worn out. In truth, the axle loads of the 1950's era design were 5 tons per axle and the trucks had moved up to much heavier axle loads. The cost of rebuilding these highways was not shared in proportion to the life taken. Except for toll roads we continued using the model of everyone paying for the towards the reconstruction based on gas usage (gas tax) and licenses purchased (vehicles owned).
Now we find ourselves in 2017 paying for a transportation system that has changed from a basic access system to one that must do all things for all people. If we are to continue to have any type of future, we will need to assign costs to users based on the burden they place on the facility. This grates on many who will say "I already pay plenty of taxes", but unless and until we design a transparent-sustainable "fee for use" system we will continue to race to the bottom of the global market place. We are already seeing a strong resistance to increasing traditional gas taxes. It is not surprising given the fact that light-small vehicles are paying $500,000 per mile for a new highway while trucks contribute $100,000 per mile of this new highway cost. (This is typical for a rural state highway with a total cost of $600,000, also, tax revenues are based on a typical rural state highway with ADT of 1500 and HCADT of 150.)
I would propose a system that would be transparent and sustainable. First what is the cost of moving one loaded truck over one mile of rural highway? It appears at test facilities that a typical pavement will last about 600,000 trips per lane. After 600,000 passes on a lane the pavement will need to be reconstructed. If this highway is rural and typical it will also need drainage, turn-lane and structural updates. A large part of the cost is grade and base foundation work to support a loaded truck.
To summarize, we have a rough idea of the cost per mile per pass ($600,000 cost divided by number of passes for two lanes 1,200,000) at $0.50 per mile per truck pass.
But what about small-light vehicles? What burden to they place on the highway? They demand safe passage, with sight lines that allow for slowing or stopping, snow and ice removal, signs with clear directions, pavement markings that work at night-in the rain, drainage to prevent flooding, ponding and hydro-planning, crossings that are allow safe entry and merging and safe shoulders and slopes, free of obstructions to errant vehicles and finally, the tough nut to crack, the traveling public demands a smooth surface that will not bend their wheels and tie rods.
Again, to summarize, what is the cost to provide such a road and bridge system to the small-light vehicle traveler? I estimate about $4000 per year per mile, using a typical rural road again with 1500 cars/light trucks per day or 546,000 per year, or rounding up, about $0.01 per vehicle.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that for transparency and sustainability we will need to assess loaded trucks at a rate of $0.50 per mile and small-light vehicles at $0.01 per mile.

------------------------------
Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
Granite Falls MN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

Barry, should the truck fee be adjusted to allow for some truck travel being unloaded?

------------------------------
David Cooper P.E., M.ASCE
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2017 11:59
From: Barry Anderson
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

I agree with the comments made up to this point and I want to add the piece that causes of confusion; who is paying for what?
For the first twenty years 1921 to 1941 the US was basically just trying to "get out of the mud". Up until the WPA and State Highway Commissions started to grade up these so-called roads, they were just cart paths with little to no grading, drainage or surfacing. The post war period opened more commerce, advanced engineering and public demands for better roads and bridges. I was part of the large block interstate highway work force from the 1950's to the end in of the era in the 1980's. It was in the 1980's that I noticed the breakup of pavements on nearly all of the road constructed in the 1950s. Up until this point the benefits and the costs were enjoyed and paid by the public with no thought of what was causing the pavement breakup. The average highway user thought the road surface was simply old and worn out. In truth, the axle loads of the 1950's era design were 5 tons per axle and the trucks had moved up to much heavier axle loads. The cost of rebuilding these highways was not shared in proportion to the life taken. Except for toll roads we continued using the model of everyone paying for the towards the reconstruction based on gas usage (gas tax) and licenses purchased (vehicles owned).
Now we find ourselves in 2017 paying for a transportation system that has changed from a basic access system to one that must do all things for all people. If we are to continue to have any type of future, we will need to assign costs to users based on the burden they place on the facility. This grates on many who will say "I already pay plenty of taxes", but unless and until we design a transparent-sustainable "fee for use" system we will continue to race to the bottom of the global market place. We are already seeing a strong resistance to increasing traditional gas taxes. It is not surprising given the fact that light-small vehicles are paying $500,000 per mile for a new highway while trucks contribute $100,000 per mile of this new highway cost. (This is typical for a rural state highway with a total cost of $600,000, also, tax revenues are based on a typical rural state highway with ADT of 1500 and HCADT of 150.)
I would propose a system that would be transparent and sustainable. First what is the cost of moving one loaded truck over one mile of rural highway? It appears at test facilities that a typical pavement will last about 600,000 trips per lane. After 600,000 passes on a lane the pavement will need to be reconstructed. If this highway is rural and typical it will also need drainage, turn-lane and structural updates. A large part of the cost is grade and base foundation work to support a loaded truck.
To summarize, we have a rough idea of the cost per mile per pass ($600,000 cost divided by number of passes for two lanes 1,200,000) at $0.50 per mile per truck pass.
But what about small-light vehicles? What burden to they place on the highway? They demand safe passage, with sight lines that allow for slowing or stopping, snow and ice removal, signs with clear directions, pavement markings that work at night-in the rain, drainage to prevent flooding, ponding and hydro-planning, crossings that are allow safe entry and merging and safe shoulders and slopes, free of obstructions to errant vehicles and finally, the tough nut to crack, the traveling public demands a smooth surface that will not bend their wheels and tie rods.
Again, to summarize, what is the cost to provide such a road and bridge system to the small-light vehicle traveler? I estimate about $4000 per year per mile, using a typical rural road again with 1500 cars/light trucks per day or 546,000 per year, or rounding up, about $0.01 per vehicle.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that for transparency and sustainability we will need to assess loaded trucks at a rate of $0.50 per mile and small-light vehicles at $0.01 per mile.

------------------------------
Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
Granite Falls MN
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

Barry... you  concluded that

  " it appears that for transparency and sustainability we will need to assess loaded trucks at a rate of $0.50 per mile and small-light vehicles at $0.01 per mile.  "

The using   fuel  consumption rates
From

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_14.html

 18 wheeler truck   4 to 6 MPG  would equal a  tax  of $ 2.00 to $ 3.00 / gallon of diesel

From

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

 US light duty vehicle average = 20 MPG   would equal a  tax of $2.00 per gallon gasoline

 Right?

------------------------------
Ronald Koehn P.E., M.ASCE
Paving Engineer
Austin TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2017 11:59
From: Barry Anderson
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

I agree with the comments made up to this point and I want to add the piece that causes of confusion; who is paying for what?
For the first twenty years 1921 to 1941 the US was basically just trying to "get out of the mud". Up until the WPA and State Highway Commissions started to grade up these so-called roads, they were just cart paths with little to no grading, drainage or surfacing. The post war period opened more commerce, advanced engineering and public demands for better roads and bridges. I was part of the large block interstate highway work force from the 1950's to the end in of the era in the 1980's. It was in the 1980's that I noticed the breakup of pavements on nearly all of the road constructed in the 1950s. Up until this point the benefits and the costs were enjoyed and paid by the public with no thought of what was causing the pavement breakup. The average highway user thought the road surface was simply old and worn out. In truth, the axle loads of the 1950's era design were 5 tons per axle and the trucks had moved up to much heavier axle loads. The cost of rebuilding these highways was not shared in proportion to the life taken. Except for toll roads we continued using the model of everyone paying for the towards the reconstruction based on gas usage (gas tax) and licenses purchased (vehicles owned).
Now we find ourselves in 2017 paying for a transportation system that has changed from a basic access system to one that must do all things for all people. If we are to continue to have any type of future, we will need to assign costs to users based on the burden they place on the facility. This grates on many who will say "I already pay plenty of taxes", but unless and until we design a transparent-sustainable "fee for use" system we will continue to race to the bottom of the global market place. We are already seeing a strong resistance to increasing traditional gas taxes. It is not surprising given the fact that light-small vehicles are paying $500,000 per mile for a new highway while trucks contribute $100,000 per mile of this new highway cost. (This is typical for a rural state highway with a total cost of $600,000, also, tax revenues are based on a typical rural state highway with ADT of 1500 and HCADT of 150.)
I would propose a system that would be transparent and sustainable. First what is the cost of moving one loaded truck over one mile of rural highway? It appears at test facilities that a typical pavement will last about 600,000 trips per lane. After 600,000 passes on a lane the pavement will need to be reconstructed. If this highway is rural and typical it will also need drainage, turn-lane and structural updates. A large part of the cost is grade and base foundation work to support a loaded truck.
To summarize, we have a rough idea of the cost per mile per pass ($600,000 cost divided by number of passes for two lanes 1,200,000) at $0.50 per mile per truck pass.
But what about small-light vehicles? What burden to they place on the highway? They demand safe passage, with sight lines that allow for slowing or stopping, snow and ice removal, signs with clear directions, pavement markings that work at night-in the rain, drainage to prevent flooding, ponding and hydro-planning, crossings that are allow safe entry and merging and safe shoulders and slopes, free of obstructions to errant vehicles and finally, the tough nut to crack, the traveling public demands a smooth surface that will not bend their wheels and tie rods.
Again, to summarize, what is the cost to provide such a road and bridge system to the small-light vehicle traveler? I estimate about $4000 per year per mile, using a typical rural road again with 1500 cars/light trucks per day or 546,000 per year, or rounding up, about $0.01 per vehicle.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that for transparency and sustainability we will need to assess loaded trucks at a rate of $0.50 per mile and small-light vehicles at $0.01 per mile.

------------------------------
Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
Granite Falls MN
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

My colleague and friend Al Field responds that there is a limit to what the taxpayer will endure and that politicians must decide whether to support "givers or takers".  Both Al and I live and work here in Arizona and for the past 25 years we have been governed by a singular philosophy of reduce taxes at all costs.  The net result of this is an annual fiscal crisis where our State routinely robs our highway fund to pay for other State obligations.  It is well past time here to put that "tax cut at all cost ideology' aside and face the real fiscal needs of our State.  We need to raise the gas tax pure and simple.  A bill to do just that was introduced in our legislature but went no where, assigned to committees that were run by the "no taxes ever" ideologues.
We need to fix our roads and we need to educate our kids and we need to improve our safety net and we need to insure a constant supply of water and we need to fix our neglected infrastructure, taxes do just that and to demonize those who recognize that problem or to sign pledges never to raise taxes is to simply pass a growing problem to our next generation.
A healthy transportation system is essential to build a growing economy.  I saw this building roads in Korea and Vietnam in the sixties.  I saw it again when Al and I and many many others built the freeway system in Phoenix and surrounding communities.
This discussion and argument is essential but the fundamental issue that we all need to get past is that taxes are not evil, they will not in and of themselves kill the economy and those who advocate for taxes to build roads or educate kids or whatever are not the Taliban.
Time for a healthy and respectful discussion.

------------------------------
Michael Ellegood P.E., M.ASCE
Consultant
Prescott AZ
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

Mr. Ellegood,

I agree completely, I guess I am venting and looking for a bright side.

------------------------------
Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
Granite Falls MN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2017 11:14
From: Michael Ellegood
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

My colleague and friend Al Field responds that there is a limit to what the taxpayer will endure and that politicians must decide whether to support "givers or takers".  Both Al and I live and work here in Arizona and for the past 25 years we have been governed by a singular philosophy of reduce taxes at all costs.  The net result of this is an annual fiscal crisis where our State routinely robs our highway fund to pay for other State obligations.  It is well past time here to put that "tax cut at all cost ideology' aside and face the real fiscal needs of our State.  We need to raise the gas tax pure and simple.  A bill to do just that was introduced in our legislature but went no where, assigned to committees that were run by the "no taxes ever" ideologues.
We need to fix our roads and we need to educate our kids and we need to improve our safety net and we need to insure a constant supply of water and we need to fix our neglected infrastructure, taxes do just that and to demonize those who recognize that problem or to sign pledges never to raise taxes is to simply pass a growing problem to our next generation.
A healthy transportation system is essential to build a growing economy.  I saw this building roads in Korea and Vietnam in the sixties.  I saw it again when Al and I and many many others built the freeway system in Phoenix and surrounding communities.
This discussion and argument is essential but the fundamental issue that we all need to get past is that taxes are not evil, they will not in and of themselves kill the economy and those who advocate for taxes to build roads or educate kids or whatever are not the Taliban.
Time for a healthy and respectful discussion.

------------------------------
Michael Ellegood P.E., M.ASCE
Consultant
Prescott AZ
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2017 08:50
From: Al Field
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

There IS a limit to how much the taxpayer can afford/endure. Politicians must decide whose vote they want; the givers or the takers!

------------------------------
Al Field Aff.M.ASCE
Owner
Al Field & Associates, LLC
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------

The "bright side" Barry, is that good people like you and I can see this and keep the pressure on.  We need to keep this issue front and center and keep pushing our elected officials to keep all of our infrastructure up to snuff.  It worked for Ike in the '50s and it will work now.

------------------------------
Michael Ellegood P.E., M.ASCE
Consultant
Prescott AZ
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2017 23:03
From: Barry Anderson
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

Mr. Ellegood,

I agree completely, I guess I am venting and looking for a bright side.

------------------------------
Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
Granite Falls MN
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2017 11:14
From: Michael Ellegood
Subject: The transportation-economy nexus

My colleague and friend Al Field responds that there is a limit to what the taxpayer will endure and that politicians must decide whether to support "givers or takers".  Both Al and I live and work here in Arizona and for the past 25 years we have been governed by a singular philosophy of reduce taxes at all costs.  The net result of this is an annual fiscal crisis where our State routinely robs our highway fund to pay for other State obligations.  It is well past time here to put that "tax cut at all cost ideology' aside and face the real fiscal needs of our State.  We need to raise the gas tax pure and simple.  A bill to do just that was introduced in our legislature but went no where, assigned to committees that were run by the "no taxes ever" ideologues.
We need to fix our roads and we need to educate our kids and we need to improve our safety net and we need to insure a constant supply of water and we need to fix our neglected infrastructure, taxes do just that and to demonize those who recognize that problem or to sign pledges never to raise taxes is to simply pass a growing problem to our next generation.
A healthy transportation system is essential to build a growing economy.  I saw this building roads in Korea and Vietnam in the sixties.  I saw it again when Al and I and many many others built the freeway system in Phoenix and surrounding communities.
This discussion and argument is essential but the fundamental issue that we all need to get past is that taxes are not evil, they will not in and of themselves kill the economy and those who advocate for taxes to build roads or educate kids or whatever are not the Taliban.
Time for a healthy and respectful discussion.

------------------------------
Michael Ellegood P.E., M.ASCE
Consultant
Prescott AZ
------------------------------