Stupid hats or thinking caps?
Published July 11, 2014
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, July 11, 2014.
Governor Pat McCrory’s admonition for people not to put on their “stupid hat” during Hurricane Arthur was easily understood, timely and right on target. It started us thinking where else we might be wearing “stupid hats.”
No example is more egregious than our inattention and inaction regarding North Carolina’s public infrastructure, especially our roads. With 100,000 new people moving here each year and a population now totaling roughly 10 million we must have a transportation network to move merchandise, get us to work and to recreation, but not only are we failing to build new roads we aren’t doing a decent job of maintaining those we already have. The 1989 Highway Trust Fund, enacted to provide our transportation needs well into this century, placed the primary funding dependence on gas taxes. Even as it failed to provide the necessary funding we additionally yielded to cries about having the 9th highest gas taxes in the country and put a “stupid” cap on those taxes, with no alternative funding mechanism.
A large number of our roads and bridges were built as a result of matching funds from the national Highway Trust Fund. For years our Congress has been arguing how to continue this program but like our state it cannot agree how to fund it. In September it is due to run out of money and will result in North Carolina’s critical transportation problem becoming a full-blown crisis.
It would be easy to place the blame on state leadership. After all, they have known the problem was growing for decades and one blue-ribbon commission after another has told us we have a funding problem. While we can accuse them of wearing “stupid hats” in refusing to lead us, the truth is they are largely responding to a loud and clear message from citizens screaming they don’t want to pay any more taxes. Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo hit the nail on the head when he said that everyone wants better roads but nobody wants to pay for them.
Those voices who have been telling us we can have roads and everything else if we will just cut the waste from state government will strike up another chorus of that tempting Siren song, but just as Circe warned Odysseus not to listen in Homer’s Odyssey we must turn a deaf ear. We won’t argue there are places where state budgets can be trimmed and we should pursue them with vigor, but the cold reality is that 85 cents of every dollar in state revenues is spent on education and health and human services. Neither the courts, the federal government nor the voters of this state are going to allow major changes in those numbers.
So let’s decide how we want to pay for our transportation network. There are options. Tolls, a tax charged on how many vehicle miles you travel each year, even higher gas taxes, increased sales taxes on vehicles or a combination would work but it’s time to choose.
We can pull our “stupid hats” down over our eyes but North Carolina’s transportation problems won’t go away; they will only get even worse and the delays will cost more. The hats we are currently wearing make us look really dumb. It’s time to put on our thinking caps.
July 11, 2014 at 9:48 am
Bill Worley says:
And thus the fundamental flaw in the current tea-party influenced drive to both lower taxes and shrink government. The radical element, well represented by comments to these forums, love the idea of lower taxes (don't we all!), and love the idea of smaller government, but have no clue how to continue to have all the things we all want and still achieve those two primary goals.
No one, not even the most ardent liberal leaning citizen, would argue that there is not inefficiency in government. The problem is that the debate has become so polarized that every offered solution is all or nothing. Proponents of a program insist the program remain, and remain untouched. Opponents of a program insist the program be eliminated.
Both are wrong. And our inept national congress has shown themselves to be entirely incapable of actually solving anything.
But let's keep in mind that it is OUR extreme partisanship that encourages them to do so. We absolutely refuse to remove an incumbent that is from our party of choice, regardless of how little that person has done to actually solve any difficult problem.
Government has a significant and vital role to play in the affairs of our lives. The roads that Tom writes about are just one significant example of that. But as long as the citizenry continue to prefer winning to solving, nothing will improve.
July 12, 2014 at 10:33 am
John Pesackis says:
Why not fund our transportation infrastructure by taxing vehicles based on mileage traveled and vehicle weight since both of these factors directly affect our infrastructure.
The current gas tax is not a practical way to adequately fund road construction and repair. A tax based on the weight of your vehicle and the miles you travel would be a realistic way to pay for highways and their maintenance. Surely this can be levied easily through modern sensor technology.
In addition, an infrastructure bank could be used to administer the funds collected.
July 20, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Joe Maxwell says:
I have been working on a solution to our transportation problems for many years and have such a solution firmly outlined. Here is an overview of the solution.
I am a retired Industrial Designer living in Burnsville, NC. Over the past few years a few friends and I have been developing a solution to our transportation problems. The criteria for this solution is very complete and workable. Here is a description of our solution. If you are interested in more information, please email me at joe.maxwell.design@gmail.com
Go Fast Legally TM
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE NEXT BIG IDEA IN
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY!
DESIGNED BY
JOSEPH A. MAXWELL
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNER
2
Several years ago the Texas Department of Transportation, Texas A&M and Texas
Transportation Institute released a report describing existing problems with our
transportation systems.
Below is part of that report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TheUnited States wastes over $1.5 billion per day (or
about $550 billion a year) due to inefficiencies in the
current highway transportation architecture. This waste
includes:
the 98.5 percent transportation dependence on a single
primary fuel (oil);
property damage caused by safety issues;
fuel consumption and lost productivity;
security expenditures; and
supply chain improvements that could be enabled by
faster, more reliable mobility of people and goods.
3
A bold solution to these challenges may exist in the form
A single lane solution, in each direction, would go a long way to solve these
problems and greatly improve the movement of people, goods and services,
with very little tax money involved.
Here is an example to help us visualize what can be done to create a system
that can move cars and containers regionally and across America at 95 mph
and more.
By removing most tractor-trailers from the our Interstate highways to an
automated system, powered by electricity, the carbon footprint is reduced,
safety is increased and shipping cost and time are reduced substantially.
This solution could help to free us from the use of fossil fuel. One
automated lane can carry as much truck traffic as an eight (8) lane Interstate.
The individual system platforms could be fitted, so that any vehicle, with
only a minor attachment added, can be driven on and locked in place
automatically, until released at the destination transfer/exchange to continue
its local deliveries.
Even the old family van, that might not make it cross country, can be
special exchange site, such as, but not limited to, a theme park, local picnic--exercise-rest site or locally managed welcome center. The user easily
accesses the transportation system again and the vehicle (and its passengers)
can continue their journey. After being released at the exchange, it would
use its own power to reach its local address.
This could be a very compelling alternative to air travel for a family or small
group, especially since you have your ground transportation with you.
Containers could be delivered directly to exchanges along the system, where
they would be picked up by local drivers using electric, gasoline or diesel
vehicles to make local deliveries. Empties go back into the system to their
newly designated exchange to be loaded for their next delivery destination.
4
UPS or FedEx can create exchanges for their ownpersonal use. An
exchange could even be a planned community, a container port, a
manufacturers new car distribution center, digital manufacturing site or the
next big idea for people to live, work or enjoy a pollution-free environment.
Linear-induction motors power the system. The coils are in the roadway and
a segmented traction plate on small wheels is suspended under the platform,
maintaining the correct gap between the coil and the plates. To keep the
primary wheels on track, the operating system would control the guide
elements that are selected to switch each platform individually to
automatically route it to its destination exchange.
The train of platforms would move at a constant speed. The system could
carry 800% more vehicles per hour than an Interstate highway lane.
Individual platforms, carrying cars, containers or trailers would enter and
exit the train, one at a time, at full speed. (Regenerative braking would be
used while slowing to enter the exchange.) With this improvement in
carrying capacity, Interstate highways could easily afford to give up one (1)
to two (2) lanes in both directions, to be retrofitted with this automated
system. The system could be added incrementally in the thirty-six (36) foot
wide center median or over existing surfaces, such as the far left lanes.
July 21, 2014 at 6:57 am
John Pesackis says:
A very interesting concept. With the advent of autonomous vehicles, is this system still an economically viable alternative?
Personally I think that we are in the beginning phase of a dramatic shift in transportation methods. I see two fundamental modes, surface contact and non-surface contact. Imagine surface contact vehicles (cars, trucks, buses,etc.).
The second mode would be comprised of low altitude non-surface contact vehicles powered primarily by electrical power.
Both modes would be autonomously guided and would not require guidance by passengers.
Since surface contact vehicles would require infrastructure construction, maintenance, and periodic replacement, I think that impact fees to fund infrastructure could be based on vehicle weight x miles traveled. Of course, non-contact vehicles would not require anywhere near the infrastructure that surface contact vehicles do.
With the advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (think "drones"), how long can it be before we are using these vehicles to transport both humans and freight?
