>>1935005The presumption is that government is aggressively derelict in its duties (it is, but not in the way they think. I'll Leave aside my pol ZOG crap though). That Government just refuses to patch potholes and needs some good ol' common sense, and its priorities ought to be: "Roads, Bridges, Tunnels, Traffic, and then Everything Else, in that order."
This is why they get so mad at welfare (while ignoring corp. welfare for corps that then immediately offshore of just buy stock options). To them it could go to fixing potholes.
Nevermind that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it can't pay for itself and we've overbuilt. Many times, we realized we had overbuilt railroads, and if they failed to turn a profit, they were shut down and abandoned. Even in the 1890s, before we really had cars, we were doing this.
It's very rare to find an abandoned road or highway, though, because they aren't expected to turn a profit.
The problem is, it's pumping money into a money-losing system. And we've built a LOT of society on the car. Wanna live somewhere nice but commute without dealing with poor areas between where you're coming from/going to? Car/Suburbia. And now, Urban Youth (TM) are ever more prevalent on such systems. They'll ambush you on a bike, mug you on a train, etc., and so the only "safe" thing left is the car/front-loaded battering ram pickup.
But Gov't can't keep pumping money into this forever. We're way past bankruptcy for many of these places.
Cars get people to-from fastest, but are the worst for space-usage. And space is what you generate profit off of, and profit is what gets taxed for municipalities. Add to it an unhealthy gen pop from driving (asthma, hypertension, obesity), plus basic financial ones already-discussed, and you get "Reasons to Stop Investing in Roads."
Which only exacerbates the impression of: "Government aggressively derelict in duties."
