Electric Car Prediction - Whatdayathing???

[Olaf Hart]

Mercruiser and Volvo make injected petrol boat engines, but they are a bit big for sailboats. I haven't heard any safety issues, but they still use bilge blowers.

Thinking of all the petrol outboards out there, the only fires I hear about come from gas installtions.

[Panope]

..........As to gasoline engines in boats, there are very very few "fires" these days because there are very few leaks. Back in the old days, things like float bowl valves in carburetors would stick open and the fuel would pour out. With computer controlled fuel injection that sort of thing just doesn't happen. Meaning that the remaining risk factors are around re-fueling, tanks, and hoses. You could deal with fuel lines by going all Areoquip race stuff. With on-deck fueling and proper grounding of the nozzle, I think the risks are pretty low. You don't see many gas stations aflame these days

Ya, my (and most everyone else's) view of gasoline safety on boats is probably stuck in the past. Need to change that, I reckon.

Speaking of the Aeroquip hoses (I call it AIRCRAFT stuff ), I've been meaning to switch to those because I built my diesel tanks as "bottom feeders" (fuel is drawn from the bottom of the tank). If a fire breaks out, the rubber fuel lines will quickly melt/burn, then ALL the fuel will pour on the fire! I have reachable valves right at the tanks, but in the heat (no pun intended) of the moment, they might not get shut off in time.

Steve

[Rob McAlpine]

Larry,

Fair warning, I'm in a grumpy mood, but despite that I'll give you the Highways as some sort of rational subsidy (like the railroads a century before.)

But!! Football stadiums???!!??? What possible rationale can one give for subsidizing the NFL??

Ok, I'll go have another glass of wine dull the pain of having done too much manual labor.

B

A lot of the highway costs have been borne by the Highway Trust Fund, funded by gasoline and diesel taxes. In other words, it has largely been user funded. Is that still a subsidy?

To the extent that that has fallen short, it is largely due to politicians using the fund for non-highway related projects, i.e. mass transit, such as light rail.

It has "fallen short" by tens of billions. I can't find an exact report on uses like light-rail but in the source cited below it was only 10% of the total budget. Over the last few years, source, the general tax fund has subsidized about $35 billion to the highway fund. That still smells like a subsidy to me.

Most estimates of non-highway spending are more like 25% of Trust fund revenues, funding bike paths, squirrel sanctuaries (I'm not kidding) and other wish list stuff, in addition to mass transit. Who's subsidizing whom?

[BeauV]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

[Jamie]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

The Heritage Foundation says that - but it look like they are including "mass transit" as a diversion of funds.

http://www.heritage.org/transportation/ ... ing#_ftn12

Other programs include the Transportation Alternatives Program, which spent $820 million in 2014 on undertakings such as sidewalks, bike paths, scenic overlooks, vegetation management, and recreational trails.

[BeauV]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

The Heritage Foundation says that - but it look like they are including "mass transit" as a diversion of funds.

http://www.heritage.org/transportation/ ... ing#_ftn12

Other programs include the Transportation Alternatives Program, which spent $820 million in 2014 on undertakings such as sidewalks, bike paths, scenic overlooks, vegetation management, and recreational trails.

Jamie, we're talking about a $35B budget, so $820m isn't very much at all.

I read that Heritage piece, followed the foot notes to this article (which is where they get the 25% number) by someplace called "Reason.com".

In that piece they say:

In 1957 about 67 percent of highway funds came from user fees. Forty years later the revenue from user fees has shrunk to just 50 percent of total highway funds.

From this, I take it that 50% of total highway funds are paid out of the general fund, although they're not entirely clear about this.

But then later say:

Today, however, at least 25 percent of federal gas tax funds are diverted to non-highway uses including maintaining sidewalks, funding bike paths, and creating scenic trails.

OK, I get the claim (which they don't actually substantiate so far as I can see). But if 25% are spend on non-highway uses, and yet 50% is funded out of the general fund, doesn't that mean that at least 25% of the spending on highway stuff is from the general fund. Note that 25 percentage points comes out to 1/3 of the total spending. Thus, a 33% subsidy to highways from general funds.

If you plow through the spreadsheet that they link at: "Federal Highway Administration’s 'Highway Authorizations' table indicates" you find all sorts of things, but nothing that comes close to adding up to 25% on non-highway stuff. (EG: the MagLev train stuff in $30m or 0.1%) There are lots of things like funds for indian reservation roads, bridge repair, etc... But take a look at the spread sheet that is buried three levels down and I think you'll find that Heritage is repeating stuff said by Reason.com and the source Reason.com provides doesn't actually say that. I'd love to hear your take on this.

I've become quite a footnote beaver - this isn't the only piece of data that seem to be a repetition of things that aren't actually supported by the documents that are cited in the footnotes.

[Jamie]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

The Heritage Foundation says that - but it look like they are including "mass transit" as a diversion of funds.

http://www.heritage.org/transportation/ ... ing#_ftn12

Other programs include the Transportation Alternatives Program, which spent $820 million in 2014 on undertakings such as sidewalks, bike paths, scenic overlooks, vegetation management, and recreational trails.

Jamie, we're talking about a $35B budget, so $820m isn't very much at all.

I read that Heritage piece, followed the foot notes to this article (which is where they get the 25% number) by someplace called "Reason.com".

In that piece they say:

In 1957 about 67 percent of highway funds came from user fees. Forty years later the revenue from user fees has shrunk to just 50 percent of total highway funds.

From this, I take it that 50% of total highway funds are paid out of the general fund, although they're not entirely clear about this.

But then later say:

Today, however, at least 25 percent of federal gas tax funds are diverted to non-highway uses including maintaining sidewalks, funding bike paths, and creating scenic trails.

OK, I get the claim (which they don't actually substantiate so far as I can see). But if 25% are spend on non-highway uses, and yet 50% is funded out of the general fund, doesn't that mean that at least 25% of the spending on highway stuff is from the general fund. Note that 25 percentage points comes out to 1/3 of the total spending. Thus, a 33% subsidy to highways from general funds.

If you plow through the spreadsheet that they link at: "Federal Highway Administration’s 'Highway Authorizations' table indicates" you find all sorts of things, but nothing that comes close to adding up to 25% on non-highway stuff. (EG: the MagLev train stuff in $30m or 0.1%) There are lots of things like funds for indian reservation roads, bridge repair, etc... But take a look at the spread sheet that is buried three levels down and I think you'll find that Heritage is repeating stuff said by Reason.com and the source Reason.com provides doesn't actually say that. I'd love to hear your take on this.

I've become quite a footnote beaver - this isn't the only piece of data that seem to be a repetition of things that aren't actually supported by the documents that are cited in the footnotes.

How often do you read the financial statements first, right? First you spend 2hrs working through all the footnotes and policy to recreate what's in the statements. Then you read the statements

I think they're just taking the 8B on mass transport plus the 0.8B and dividing it against the gas tax takings and using the weasel words like "federal priority".

[BeauV]

We have been promised self driving cars.... (slightly off topic)... instead we have suicide robots.

PBS picture of a security robot committing suicide by drowning:

[Rob McAlpine]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

[BeauV]

But neither the Wikipedia page or the footnote says what the "earmarked" projects are.

[Jamie]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

Here's the link to the footnote with that quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211 ... 08-15.html

Are we talking about highway funds or fuel taxes? If fuel taxes covered all of highway spend, then I'd agree with you. But it seems that other transportation funds are getting mixed in to cover the shortfall.

Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).

So we found from another source that number spent on squirrel paths was 820M and Peters is saying all earmarks - not all of which are fluff.

Funding Congressional earmarks
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure..

The US pays very low fuel and use taxes compared to most of the rest of the world. Maybe we should think about indexing them to cover the spend?

I had to pay US 1k in an annual fuel levy for a 2.5L car and fuel was 40% more expensive. In addition all highway miles were tolled with an RFID like sticker. In return the highways were well maintained despite heavy use.

[LarryHoward]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

Here's the link to the footnote with that quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211 ... 08-15.html

Are we talking about highway funds or fuel taxes? If fuel taxes covered all of highway spend, then I'd agree with you. But it seems that other transportation funds are getting mixed in to cover the shortfall.

Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).

So we found from another source that number spent on squirrel paths was 820M and Peters is saying all earmarks - not all of which are fluff.

Funding Congressional earmarks
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure..

The US pays very low fuel and use taxes compared to most of the rest of the world. Maybe we should think about indexing them to cover the spend?

I had to pay US 1k in an annual fuel levy for a 2.5L car and fuel was 40% more expensive. In addition all highway miles were tolled with an RFID like sticker. In return the highways were well maintained despite heavy use.

Jaime,

Folks are talking about changes. MD raised gas taxes a couple of years ago but one of the serious options was changing it to a percentage similar to a sales tax so it was "self indexing". The problem of increased maintenance costs, higher CAFE reducing fuel (and tax) per mile and the advent of electric vehicles "riding for free" generated conversations on moving more to a "pay per mile" over pay per gallon. That immediately lead to the "regressive tax" calls as the poor generally live further from their jobs and drive older, less efficient cars. Of course, in my county the state legislator who opened the discussion were chased out of office by a shrill "he's gonna raise your taxes and take your guns" newcomer.

Unfortunately, we want more infrastructure, military, health care, social services, etc. than we are willing to pay for and are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren. Both parties are guilty, just prefer to slaughter the other party's sacred cows to fix it so nothing gets done.

[Orestes Munn]

the poor generally live further from their jobs and drive older, less efficient cars. Of course, in my county the state legislator who opened the discussion were chased out of office by a shrill "he's gonna raise your taxes and take your guns" newcomer.

Unfortunately, we want more infrastructure, military, health care, social services, etc. than we are willing to pay for and are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren. Both parties are guilty, just prefer to slaughter the other party's sacred cows to fix it so nothing gets done.

True, but today the poor drive little old ricers and everyone else has an F150 or a Cayenne.

[Jamie]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

Here's the link to the footnote with that quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211 ... 08-15.html

Are we talking about highway funds or fuel taxes? If fuel taxes covered all of highway spend, then I'd agree with you. But it seems that other transportation funds are getting mixed in to cover the shortfall.

Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).

So we found from another source that number spent on squirrel paths was 820M and Peters is saying all earmarks - not all of which are fluff.

Funding Congressional earmarks
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure..

The US pays very low fuel and use taxes compared to most of the rest of the world. Maybe we should think about indexing them to cover the spend?

I had to pay US 1k in an annual fuel levy for a 2.5L car and fuel was 40% more expensive. In addition all highway miles were tolled with an RFID like sticker. In return the highways were well maintained despite heavy use.

Jaime,

Folks are talking about changes. MD raised gas taxes a couple of years ago but one of the serious options was changing it to a percentage similar to a sales tax so it was "self indexing". The problem of increased maintenance costs, higher CAFE reducing fuel (and tax) per mile and the advent of electric vehicles "riding for free" generated conversations on moving more to a "pay per mile" over pay per gallon. That immediately lead to the "regressive tax" calls as the poor generally live further from their jobs and drive older, less efficient cars. Of course, in my county the state legislator who opened the discussion were chased out of office by a shrill "he's gonna raise your taxes and take your guns" newcomer.

Unfortunately, we want more infrastructure, military, health care, social services, etc. than we are willing to pay for and are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren. Both parties are guilty, just prefer to slaughter the other party's sacred cows to fix it so nothing gets done.

It is regressive, but we've got low population densities and horrible public transport. No easy solution there. The debt doesn't bother me as long as we owe it to ourselves but it does represent a transfer of wealth from tax payer to investors, especially with regressive taxes. Ooops!

As a Spanish minister, fighting for the Dutch colonies lamented, " whoever is left with the last escudo will win". In my mind national power comes from economic might. Economic might requires a productive populace - which requires good education, healthcare and infrastructure and the ability to skim the cream of global human capital. How much of what we are doing is in line with that?

[LarryHoward]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

Here's the link to the footnote with that quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211 ... 08-15.html

Are we talking about highway funds or fuel taxes? If fuel taxes covered all of highway spend, then I'd agree with you. But it seems that other transportation funds are getting mixed in to cover the shortfall.

Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).

So we found from another source that number spent on squirrel paths was 820M and Peters is saying all earmarks - not all of which are fluff.

Funding Congressional earmarks
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure..

The US pays very low fuel and use taxes compared to most of the rest of the world. Maybe we should think about indexing them to cover the spend?

I had to pay US 1k in an annual fuel levy for a 2.5L car and fuel was 40% more expensive. In addition all highway miles were tolled with an RFID like sticker. In return the highways were well maintained despite heavy use.

Jaime,

Folks are talking about changes. MD raised gas taxes a couple of years ago but one of the serious options was changing it to a percentage similar to a sales tax so it was "self indexing". The problem of increased maintenance costs, higher CAFE reducing fuel (and tax) per mile and the advent of electric vehicles "riding for free" generated conversations on moving more to a "pay per mile" over pay per gallon. That immediately lead to the "regressive tax" calls as the poor generally live further from their jobs and drive older, less efficient cars. Of course, in my county the state legislator who opened the discussion were chased out of office by a shrill "he's gonna raise your taxes and take your guns" newcomer.

Unfortunately, we want more infrastructure, military, health care, social services, etc. than we are willing to pay for and are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren. Both parties are guilty, just prefer to slaughter the other party's sacred cows to fix it so nothing gets done.

It is regressive, but we've got low population densities and horrible public transport. No easy solution there. The debt doesn't bother me as long as we owe it to ourselves but it does represent a transfer of wealth from tax payer to investors, especially with regressive taxes. Ooops!

As a Spanish minister, fighting for the Dutch colonies lamented, " whoever is left with the last escudo will win". In my mind national power comes from economic might. Economic might requires a productive populace - which requires good education, healthcare and infrastructure and the ability to skim the cream of global human capital. How much of what we are doing is in line with that?

Gee. Sounds just like the "Elements of National Power" studied by the senior service colleges and in depth at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (where I studied). It's not all about guns, tanks and ships. A healthy, educated, fed population with good infrastructure and a well managed economy is most of what makes a nation strong.

[BeauV]

Guys,

Just in case anyone thought differently, I am completely convinced that Reagan brought the cold war to an end precisely because we had made major investments in education, economic growth based on infrastructure, and a willingness to grow the population through immigration. The Russians simply could not keep up and it became obvious to them (and everyone else).

Today, we are defunding education, have defunded infrastructure for decades, and are unwilling to grow the population through immigration.

B

[Jamie]

Rob, not trying to be argumentative, but I can't find anything like 25% any place; and I've been googling all over the place. Plenty of folks who "say" things like that, but no source.

"Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[9] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Jamie, using highway funds for mass transit is, in fact, a diversion.

Here's the link to the footnote with that quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211 ... 08-15.html

Are we talking about highway funds or fuel taxes? If fuel taxes covered all of highway spend, then I'd agree with you. But it seems that other transportation funds are getting mixed in to cover the shortfall.

Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).

So we found from another source that number spent on squirrel paths was 820M and Peters is saying all earmarks - not all of which are fluff.

Funding Congressional earmarks
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure..

The US pays very low fuel and use taxes compared to most of the rest of the world. Maybe we should think about indexing them to cover the spend?

I had to pay US 1k in an annual fuel levy for a 2.5L car and fuel was 40% more expensive. In addition all highway miles were tolled with an RFID like sticker. In return the highways were well maintained despite heavy use.

Jaime,

Folks are talking about changes. MD raised gas taxes a couple of years ago but one of the serious options was changing it to a percentage similar to a sales tax so it was "self indexing". The problem of increased maintenance costs, higher CAFE reducing fuel (and tax) per mile and the advent of electric vehicles "riding for free" generated conversations on moving more to a "pay per mile" over pay per gallon. That immediately lead to the "regressive tax" calls as the poor generally live further from their jobs and drive older, less efficient cars. Of course, in my county the state legislator who opened the discussion were chased out of office by a shrill "he's gonna raise your taxes and take your guns" newcomer.

Unfortunately, we want more infrastructure, military, health care, social services, etc. than we are willing to pay for and are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren. Both parties are guilty, just prefer to slaughter the other party's sacred cows to fix it so nothing gets done.

It is regressive, but we've got low population densities and horrible public transport. No easy solution there. The debt doesn't bother me as long as we owe it to ourselves but it does represent a transfer of wealth from tax payer to investors, especially with regressive taxes. Ooops!

As a Spanish minister, fighting for the Dutch colonies lamented, " whoever is left with the last escudo will win". In my mind national power comes from economic might. Economic might requires a productive populace - which requires good education, healthcare and infrastructure and the ability to skim the cream of global human capital. How much of what we are doing is in line with that?

Gee. Sounds just like the "Elements of National Power" studied by the senior service colleges and in depth at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (where I studied). It's not all about guns, tanks and ships. A healthy, educated, fed population with good infrastructure and a well managed economy is most of what makes a nation strong.

People forget that our war colleges are also have a wonderful liberal arts curriculum. I had the pleasure of studying under a prof from the Naval War College in my undergrad days.

[LarryHoward]

Back to electric cars. Tesla appears to be learning that being a car company is different than being a tech company. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/ ... la-n816466

Quarterly revenues very slightly ahead of predictions (less than 1%). Losses (we don't need no stinking profit) worse than forecasts at $2.92/share vs the $2.45 forecast. Some analysts are starting to say "sell" and issue appears to be a combination of weak demand for Model S and X (offering price discounts to maintain sales numbers) and Model 3 production not meeting the needed ramp up. First quarter production of 260 vehicles against a target of 1,500. Mainstream competition is growing and more folks entering the market have actually built production quantities of cars.

Wonder when the shine will wear off their stock price?

[Ajax]

Yep, if they don't get their heads out of their asses regarding the Model 3 production line, they are well on their way to becoming this generation's DeLorean Motor Cars.

[BeauV]

Amazon clearly taught folks that losing money for extended periods of time was worth it if you could continue to grow and gain a strategic position.

I agree, building a high volume car company is far different from building a boutique car company. As to the sale of X and S models, my understanding is that Tesla has the dubious distinction of sucking less than everyone else.

MBZ sales of the S-Class are down 49% in October and 24.8% for the year, Cadillac sales are down 33% for the year. Tesla looks relatively good at +26% for the first half of this year vs last. As to the Model 3, it's late but probably not late enough for all the excitement.



Source first set of numbers

Source of table

[LarryHoward]

Move forward a quarter, slip the ramp up another quarter. Tesla announces more production delays.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) delayed a production target for its new Model 3 sedan for the second time on Wednesday, disappointing investors even as it claimed “major progress” overcoming manufacturing challenges that have hampered the vehicle’s rollout.

New forecast calling for 50% of planned production for another quarter. Stock drops 2% after hours. Analysts saying not much cash margin but that they should not require additional capital.

Hmmm.

[TheOffice]

While my wife waits another year for the Model 3, the semi has attracted huge orders. The trucks may be the cash cow at $150k each that Tesla needs.
If he doesn't start delivering on the 3 in the second quarter there will be bloodshed in the stock.

It still amazes me that Musk built both a car and rocket company from scratch.

[LarryHoward]

While my wife waits another year for the Model 3, the semi has attracted huge orders. The trucks may be the cash cow at $150k each that Tesla needs.
If he doesn't start delivering on the 3 in the second quarter there will be bloodshed in the stock.

It still amazes me that Musk built both a car and rocket company from scratch.

He is amazing but has a history of making big announcements on developing technology and then underperforming on development and delivery. Gets there eventually but takes time. Moving from bespoke cars to mass production, the solar shingles (still only available to employees as beta testers) and the somewhat extended time to get the “return to launch”part right although that is still an amazing accomplishment.

I guess investors love the showman and, for now, most seem patient and willing to wait for what has been success in time. Beau is correct, investors are treating it as a tech company, not a car company but if he is going to be a mass production builder, eventually the cash flow has to turn positive.

[kdh]

While my wife waits another year for the Model 3, the semi has attracted huge orders. The trucks may be the cash cow at $150k each that Tesla needs.
If he doesn't start delivering on the 3 in the second quarter there will be bloodshed in the stock.

It still amazes me that Musk built both a car and rocket company from scratch.

Musk is our Jesus Christ of Technology now that Jobs is dead. It's easy for him to find disciples.

[Jamie]

While my wife waits another year for the Model 3, the semi has attracted huge orders. The trucks may be the cash cow at $150k each that Tesla needs.
If he doesn't start delivering on the 3 in the second quarter there will be bloodshed in the stock.

It still amazes me that Musk built both a car and rocket company from scratch.

He is amazing but has a history of making big announcements on developing technology and then underperforming on development and delivery. Gets there eventually but takes time. Moving from bespoke cars to mass production, the solar shingles (still only available to employees as beta testers) and the somewhat extended time to get the “return to launch”part right although that is still an amazing accomplishment.

I guess investors love the showman and, for now, most seem patient and willing to wait for what has been success in time. Beau is correct, investors are treating it as a tech company, not a car company but if he is going to be a mass production builder, eventually the cash flow has to turn positive.

Just to put it in perspective: We were talking to UPS and someone asked about the hundred or so Tesla trucks they pre-ordered. The comment back was, something along the lines of, well, we have over 100k trucks, so really this is just a small hedge.

[TheOffice]

Jamie,

Interesting! If 10% are semis then they could sell UPS 10,000 units as diesels are retired.

If only Musk were a sailor we could get Li boat batteries we could afford.

[LarryHoward]

Jamie,

Interesting! If 10% are semis then they could sell UPS 10,000 units as diesels are retired.

If only Musk were a sailor we could get Li boat batteries we could afford.

Now there's a good thought.

[Jamie]

Jamie,

Interesting! If 10% are semis then they could sell UPS 10,000 units as diesels are retired.

If only Musk were a sailor we could get Li boat batteries we could afford.

Now there's a good thought.

Yeah...This is trickle down I could live with.

[BeauV]

I finally had a chance to drive my daughter's Model 3. It's a great car. Yup, they can't build them in volume yet. Yup, they are in serious crunch time etc... Yup, if they fail to ramp next quarter the stock will get hit. (I might be a buyer if it were cut in half.)

The good news is that the car is a serious competitor for the BMW 3 and 4 series and makes a MBZ E class look like a slug.

I don't get the long-haul semi Tesla at all. That's the last truck I'd expect them to build. What would be killer, IMHO, is a short wheelbase Urban hauler and box truck. Those things are start-stop all day long and it would be great to burn zero fuel while sitting still. I just don't get it. No one I know at Tesla can explain it either, except to say that the autopilot will help a lot to lower labor costs on long hauls. But... But.... But.... labor is NOT that big a component of long-haul trucking. Oh well.

[TheOffice]

Good to hear about the 3! I’ve only done a test drive of the S. When we were in San Fran we stopped at the Tesla store but they didn’t have a 3 or any info beyond what was on the web.

There is a serious shortage of truck drivers. The semi addresses that.