Comments on: The Long, Ugly Road to a Federal Transportation Plan

By: Cephas

Cephas — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:19:01 +0000

To Urbanis and Ian:

Our electoral system was an advance from state-appointed representatives electing the president. It never was a one man, one vote process.

That said, if more populous centers want more funds for their projects, as they very well should, they need to end their federal dependence and reassert their statehood as originally intended. The more the federal government erodes state rights, the more states are dependent on the federal government, then the more the less populous states will have the same say how the money's spent as the more populous ones and the more money will be diverted away from NY and out to WY.

Sorry if that's a little dense. I hope you can all understand the point.

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:41 +0000

Besides the Senate, some other examples are the Electoral College, and, indeed, the constitutional amendment process--all of which serve to distort the principle of one person, one vote.

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:38:59 +0000

@Ian #4, Wyoming probably wouldn't approve, but I'm just pointing out that there are certain structural inequities in our current political system that stand in the way of more progressive and urban-centered public policy.

By: TAS

TAS — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:39:39 +0000

Thanks for a useful recap of what many have forgotten since middle school civics class. It's slightly disingenuous, no? to link House-Senate accord to an unlikely change to Secretary LaHood's blog title. The Secretary's demonstrated knack for practical solutions, even if they require compromise, is way beyond Congress' capacity for consensus.

By: Chris in Sacramento

Chris in Sacramento — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:01:59 +0000

Note to Elana, Aaron et al:

It's wonderful to have Elana and her informative and substantive reports here with us at Streetsblog. Please don't let the relative paucity of comments here as compared those tied to the red-meat issue of safety below discourage you from continuing your outstanding coverage of federal legislation.

Chris in Sacramento

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:17:44 +0000

Urbanis, as you point out abolishing the Senate would take power away from Wyoming. Amending the Constitution requires approval by 3/4 of the states. Why would Wyoming approve?

By: Shemp

Shemp — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:38:29 +0000

"Federal spending" is not locked in to auto dependence in any way. It's how the states use the federal funds that is the problem. Federal transportation funding is already highly flexible. Streetsblog is not going to be much help to people on this issue if it doesn't understand this to begin with.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:21:08 +0000

In the long run, earmarks are a bad way to do good things. We need a straightforward, longterm policy change led by the president and his secretary of transportation. The chances for this are better now than at any time in living memory. But first we must overcome the popular delusion that the solution to all our transport and environmental problems is the electric car.

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:05:05 +0000

Abolition of the Senate in favor of a unicameral legislature would remove fully half of the boxes on this flow chart and considerably shorten the legislative "road" depicted. Another benefit would be the end of the incredible electoral distortion that occurs when the residents of Wyoming (pop. 532,668) receive the exact same number of senatorial votes as the residents of New York (pop. 19,490,297), with (one hopes) the end of the disproportionate flow of resources to the sparsely-populated rural hinterlands to the detriment of city-dwellers, where most people actually reside.