I was going to call bunk on this, but after a bit of googling it's a lot less clear. I can't find much on construction of miles by year or decade. It started in 1956 and took 35 years (although still being extended), so 70's and 80's would cover more than half - so I guess it depends on how you define "most".
I am more curious now though, got any good reference beyond wiki and the very vague federal FAQs I found?
Most usually means more than half.
No on the bolded. I can say that on my 21st Bday I bought a brand new 1973 VW Bus for $3700 right off the car carrier at the dealer. 18 months later, it had 58,000 miles on it, having traveled from coast to coast to coast to the Canadian border in it. I once figured that by my mid 30's I had driven a million miles. So I got to witness the growth of the Interstate system by driving it. By the end of the 70's most of the two digit highways were done. In the 80's most of the 3 digit highways (the connectors and beltways) were done.
I can tell you about the SF bay area in the 50's and 60's and remember the San Rafael Bay bridge being completed sometime in the early 60's and riding the ferries before that all around the bay area. There were only 3 bridges until then ( the Oakland / SF, the GG and the San Mateo and no tunnels like BART's under the bay. Down south around LA, there were a few freeways, but I - 5 was still on the drawing board. There was a pontoon bridge we had to cross from Long Beach proper to get to the Navy Yard there. It was an adventure to cross during low tide ... LA still had street cars on rails. Funny how they ripped them all out and 50 years later, they're putting them back. But that is what government does, declares something obsolete, destroys it, replaces it and later comes up with a new idea to put street cars back in place, at a cost magnitudes greater than if they had just maintained and improved on the existing stuff. But there is more money to be spread around destroying and building and destroying and repeating the cycle endlessly. Kinda like what is happening to our health care system.
The lesson learned by me at least, is that newer is not always better ... and it always costs more when the .gov is involved.
Oh and speaking of slush funds trains ... the cost of the SF to LA high speed rail line is $100 million dollars per mile. That is a real deal, right ? And I can back up that number if pressed. I did post a reference to that several years ago ...
see here ... the distance between Merced to Fresno is 60 miles, you do the math ...
But the report also reveals that significant obstacles remain before the agency can complete its $6 billion "initial construction segment" from Merced to north of Bakersfield using a mix of federal stimulus and transportation funds and state bond money;
I'm not sure that infrastructure shouldn't be maintained by a government to ensure the safety and well-being of its populace. I certainly have no interest in driving the Costco Turnpike and getting home to Electricity by Target. Maybe you wouldn't call that cronyism - maybe it's just capitalism - but I don't see a difference in the end result.
Infrastructure is exactly the kind of grand scale public good projects the government is good at. Sure there is a bit of waste and occasional corruption, but not a lot more (maybe not even any more) than there is in private projects - you just never here about those because private shareholder don't get news coverage. Support of the public commons is what government does well, and is where it should focus.
Or expecting to be CEO's coming straight out of college with useless degrees in the humanities. I'm not knocking the humanities, just saying that they don't lead to jobs that are going to make one wealthy, let alone independent. The sense of entitlement leads to these unreal expectations. They want to be paid for just showing up.
I basically agree with your generational explanation. I would only disagree with your thoughts as to when this 'amazing infrastructure' was built. It was built mostly in the 70's and 80's by the boomer generation. I remember my first trip to school in Florida in the fall of 1970 driving down from Philly to Melbourne, Fla and there was only 10 miles of I - 95 built in the state of Georgia at the time. When we left California in Nov of 68 to move to Philly, there were no Interstates, we took US 66 all the way to OK City and kept going on other US federal highways. But this is a very small point. This amazing infrastructure is in shambles for a myriad of reasons. This infrastructure built only 30 years ago is rotting and near worthless. We had a stimulus that was supposed to pay for its rebuilding. 6 years later, there's no improvement to speak of.
Oh and what did Josh Ernest say today in response to being asked about what was behind the single largest drop of the DOW in history ? He said we need to spend invest in more infrastructure in order to make things better as his answer. Infrastructure is liberal speak for a slush fund for cronyism ...
I was going to call bunk on this, but after a bit of googling it's a lot less clear. I can't find much on construction of miles by year or decade. It started in 1956 and took 35 years (although still being extended), so 70's and 80's would cover more than half - so I guess it depends on how you define "most".
I am more curious now though, got any good reference beyond wiki and the very vague federal FAQs I found?
I worry that, since we need legit infrastructure improvement (water, power, highway, information) that having it tagged with a political "side" will prevent it from happening. To me, it's a neutral non-partisan thing.
Should we entrust the functionality of our nation to the government (insert usual "they're incompetent" rant) and if not, then it's gotta be private and likely for-profit. Who pays for those services? Typically the people that use the service, frequently as they use the service.
So the country roads that we use every once in a while will never be profitable, and will be abandoned or poorly maintained by people who don't have the machinery to do repairs and maintenance. Folks who don't have a significant income won't get power lines, since they can't pay for them.
I'm not sure that infrastructure shouldn't be maintained by a government to ensure the safety and well-being of its populace. I certainly have no interest in driving the Costco Turnpike and getting home to Electricity by Target. Maybe you wouldn't call that cronyism - maybe it's just capitalism - but I don't see a difference in the end result.
Roads are an excellent example of how things don't work. The gas taxes are diverted to pay for other things that fewer people use that cannot support themselves, like buses and bicycle paths, while the roads crumble and bridges collapse and people die as a direct result. What goes into the pot for one promised purpose does not come out for that promised purpose. Now if it did, I would have a different view, but it doesn't and that is why I feel the way I do about it.
He's been pretty obvious about that, talking about how 'Merica isn't winning at things anymore. That, I don't disagree with. I see our culture in segments: my grandparents/parents made it through the Depression and WW2 and built great things; their children inherited a nation that boasted amazing infrastructure and NASA; their children lived large on the opulence provided by their forebears; their children lack initiative and vision, but are demanding and critical.
I know that you can find quotes from Socrates where he says the same - but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Who's willing to work hard, get smart, and rebuild the country? (Hint - they're not citizens. The citizens are chanting "Merica!," refusing education in favor of "beliefs" and are on cruise control watching TV and wishing they were rappers/princesses.)
Or expecting to be CEO's coming straight out of college with useless degrees in the humanities. I'm not knocking the humanities, just saying that they don't lead to jobs that are going to make one wealthy, let alone independent. The sense of entitlement leads to these unreal expectations. They want to be paid for just showing up.
I basically agree with your generational explanation. I would only disagree with your thoughts as to when this 'amazing infrastructure' was built. It was built mostly in the 70's and 80's by the boomer generation. I remember my first trip to school in Florida in the fall of 1970 driving down from Philly to Melbourne, Fla and there was only 10 miles of I - 95 built in the state of Georgia at the time. When we left California in Nov of 68 to move to Philly, there were no Interstates, we took US 66 all the way to OK City and kept going on other US federal highways. But this is a very small point. This amazing infrastructure is in shambles for a myriad of reasons. This infrastructure built only 30 years ago is rotting and near worthless. We had a stimulus that was supposed to pay for its rebuilding. 6 years later, there's no improvement to speak of.
Oh and what did Josh Ernest say today in response to being asked about what was behind the single largest drop of the DOW in history ? He said we need to spend invest in more infrastructure in order to make things better as his answer. Infrastructure is liberal speak for a slush fund for cronyism ...
Is Trump's slogan really "Make America Great Again"? Because that translates to "America Sucks Right Now" and that's hard to argue with since that America made people like him skrillionaires but maybe not what he meant to say.
Is Trump's slogan really "Make America Great Again"? Because that translates to "America Sucks Right Now" and that's hard to argue with since that America made people like him skrillionaires but maybe not what he meant to say.
You're assuming that the people listening to him actually think about what he says.
Is Trump's slogan really "Make America Great Again"? Because that translates to "America Sucks Right Now" and that's hard to argue with since that America made people like him skrillionaires but maybe not what he meant to say.
Reflecting on the body of the above article, Trump holds all the cards. Let's pretend that Trump has enough cash to buy a law firm and employ it full time filing law suits against malicious tweeters and bloggers. Someone spouting unsubstantiated bs about him and all he has to do is make a call and say sue the bastid and yippy-skippy. He can shut down almost all of it, unlike anyone else can. We all know that you can sue anyone for anything, so nothing is stopping him.
I believe that it would stop the usual reckless behaviour of just plain making things up to put a candidate on the defensive and spend time defending themselves instead of speaking about the things they want to talk about. The bloggers and what not will have to take time and spend money to defend themselves, instead of counting on the fact that no candidate to date has the resources required to take on these propagandists. Its easy to sit and spew when you know there are no real consequences, but when you have to put your money where your mouth is, well I think that this is a game changer.
I think that this would be pretty cool, not that it would ever happen, cuz Trump is only a clown posing as a candidate, he wouldn't be smart enough to do what I mentioned above. And no I didn't read this anywhere, its just my imagination that arrived at this scenario.
