U.S. Infrastructure Found to Be in Disrepair

[BTinSF]

Pull out your checkbooks:

U.S. Infrastructure Found to Be in Disrepair
Higher Taxes Are Forecast To Meet Investment Need;
Reconsidering Cities
By THADDEUS HERRICK
May 9, 2007; Page B4

Airports, roads, rail, bridges and other transit infrastructure are deteriorating across the U.S. because of insufficient investment, according to a report.

Chicago needs $6 billion to bring its subways into good repair, says the report to be released today by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young LLP. Rehabilitation or replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge north of New York City could cost as much as $14.5 billion. And in Atlanta, current rush-hour trips by car could take 75% longer by 2030.

The report, entitled "Infrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective," says the failure to address what the co-authors call an emerging crisis in mobility will undermine the ability of the U.S. to compete internationally. "At some point, the system is going to grind to a halt," says Dale Ann Reiss, global director of real estate at the New York-based Ernst & Young accounting firm and vice chairman of the Urban Land Institute, a land-use think tank in Washington.

More foreboding, the report warns that further inaction will lead to disasters on the magnitude of the levee failures in Hurricane Katrina.

The report underscores the broader disrepair of transit, power and water systems in the U.S. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded as "poor" the condition of the nation's transit infrastructure as well as power grids, dams and systems for drinking water and wastewater. The U.S. faces a $1.6 trillion deficit in needed infrastructure spending through 2010 for repairs and maintenance, today's report says.

A lack of political will because of fear of raising taxes is mainly responsible for the shortfall, the report says. It predicts an array of higher taxes but also says help is needed from the private sector and public-private partnerships, which it predicts will help fund, construct, operate and manage transit projects. Investment funds sponsored by global investment banks, private-equity firms and institutional money managers are becoming a rapidly expanding source of capital for everything from toll roads to bridges to tunnels, especially in Europe and the United Kingdom, the report says.

"We have a lot to learn from other parts of the world," says Ms. Reiss, who is to present the study at an Urban Land Institute meeting in Chicago. The U.S. encourages automobile dependency, according to the report, while a number of other countries are pursuing transportation alternatives. The report says there were more than 750 cars per 1,000 people in the U.S. as of 2000, while the number was just over 500 cars per 1,000 in the U.K. No amount of investment will be adequate if driving continues to be the only practical transportation option in the U.S., the report says.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/MK-AJ855_declin_20070508202207.gif

Meanwhile, Japan has 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) of high-speed rail and is building 300 additional kilometers by 2020, the study says. China is building more than 2,500 kilometers. The U.S. has only 300 kilometers of high-speed rail and none under construction. The cost for the U.S. to catch up: at least $250 billion over the next 20 years.

The study urges leaders and planners to reconsider the way U.S. cities are built, with hub-and-spoke systems to better handle mass transit. It also suggests infill housing and mixed-use development to reduce dependence on cars, especially in Sun Belt cities such as Houston, where the average commuter already drives 39 miles a day.

Some states are taking action. California, for example, passed a $37 billion state public-works bond measure last year, earmarking $20 billion for transport, $10 billion for school construction, $4 billion for levees and $3 billion for affordable housing built near mass transit. As a result, though, about 6% of the state's general-fund tax revenues will be needed to pay debt service, a relatively high level.

Not surprisingly, the greatest action is occurring in emerging economies. Annually, China spends 9% of its gross domestic product on infrastructure, while India spends 3.5%, the report says. While the U.S. doesn't face such massive infrastructure buildup, it still needs to spend more on maintenance. It spends just .93% of its GDP, or $112.9 billion, according to the study.

I-10/I-110 in LA
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/OB-AK352_DECLIN_20070508221923.jpg

Write to Thaddeus Herrick at thaddeus.herrick@wsj.com1

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117867434198996732.html

[VivaLFuego]

I'll be interested to read the full report, but of course the basic jist is something most of us are well aware of.

It's just must sexier and more appealing, as a politician, to get up and talk about how you're going to end poverty, give everyone free health care, make America safer/more respected abroad/etc., make the streets safe, help the proverbial "middle class", etc. etc. than it is to commit to focusing on the basics underpinning the operation of our society.

It's that much more annoying when local politicians get so self-important that they actually try to tackle these national and global issues rather than deal with what they were elected for: providing local services. This is a serious epidemic in Illinois, where our Governor wants to provide health insurance for everyone and our local aldermen want to ban the sale foie gras. Dude, just fix all the potholes and get the trash picked up.

[BTinSF]

This is a serious epidemic in Illinois, where our Governor wants to provide health insurance for everyone and our local aldermen want to ban the sale foie gras. Dude, just fix all the potholes and get the trash picked up.

Actually I'm kind of surprised to hear this said by someone from THE American city that may be the best governed. Our (SF's) mayor goes to Chicago for lessons on how to do things (and he hasn't yet learned them very well even though he's probably our best option as he runs for re-election).

[JManc]

Meanwhile, Japan has 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) of high-speed rail and is building 300 additional kilometers by 2020, the study says. China is building more than 2,500 kilometers. The U.S. has only 300 kilometers of high-speed rail and none under construction. The cost for the U.S. to catch up: at least $250 billion over the next 20 years.

we have the money to catch up. if we can blow $400 billion in just 5 years over this stupid war in iraq, we can definitely come up with the $250 billion and then spread it out over two decades to invest on infrastructure. we think nothing in spending $500 billion annually on defense but drag our feet on vital issues like mobility and education becuase our priorities are fucked up.

[Trainman Dave]

we have the money to catch up. if we can blow $400 billion in just 5 years over this stupid war in iraq, we can definitely come up with the $250 billion and then spread it out over two decades to invest on infrastructure. we think nothing in spending $500 billion annually on defense but drag our feet on vital issues like mobility and education becuase our priorities are fucked up.

But the Iraq war is not in the budget so we don't have to raise taxes to pay for it. Infrastructure maintenance requires taxes!
Our current Infrastructure problems are caused by spineless politicians who only want to cut taxes and allocate pork rather than actually govern.

[VivaLFuego]

Actually I'm kind of surprised to hear this said by someone from THE American city that may be the best governed. Our (SF's) mayor goes to Chicago for lessons on how to do things (and he hasn't yet learned them very well even though he's probably our best option as he runs for re-election).

Our mayor is the one exception, being someone who does muscle civic improvements through (sometimes better, sometimes worse, but generally people are content to take the good with the bad). But our City Council, state congressional delegations, and Governor Blagojevich (D-Idiot) are a disgrace. We've got some active representation in Washington (Obama, Durbin, Emmanuel, etc.) but I mean, their job is to deal with the national issues, and we've got hardly anyone focusing on the basic local needs like infrastructure.

[whyhuhwhy]

It sucks because as far as politics goes, we are in between a rock and a hard place.

The Democrats have proven worthless because they will just use the money to do things like "end poverty" and give everyone "free health care" and throw more money at failing schools, like Blago here is doing in Illinois.

The Republicans have proven worthless because they refuse to cut military spending and waste so much money on the war in Iraq, and many of them don't support transit.

What we need is more anti-war, pro-transit Republicans or more Democrats who don't believe they can socially re-engineer society and would do more practical things like get people moving to and from work.

I myself notice the things the report talks about. It seems the US has completely forgotten to invest in infrastructure the past 15 years. It's funny because congestions and getting people moving efficiently in America's largest cities is becoming a big problem. Everyone complains about it and the people agree it is not just a priority but in many cities it is THE priority, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears from leaders.

From the top down we need to keep taxes in this country low, and start cutting the military budget and divert it towards infrastructure. I really think it is that simple. We have an incredible amount of money in this country that we are spending on military and social spending, as our roads become increasingly congested and our transit systems fall apart.

The good news is usually it takes a "crisis" for political leaders to wake up and I think we are on the verge of that.

[whyhuhwhy]

Actually I'm kind of surprised to hear this said by someone from THE American city that may be the best governed. Our (SF's) mayor goes to Chicago for lessons on how to do things (and he hasn't yet learned them very well even though he's probably our best option as he runs for re-election).

The Mayor can only do so much when our joke of a Governor wants to literally give Illinois the biggest tax raise in history to pay for free health care and throw more money at failing schools. He doesn't even have anything to help get people moving to and from work on the table. Congestion and taking forever to get to work is becoming a real problem in Chicago, and not just on the highways.

The sad thing is there are some real bad bottlenecks here that should have never existed in the first place. The Edens and Kennedy inbound in an afternoon can take you an hour to get downtown because it is 6 lanes going into 4. The Eisenhower goes from 4 to 3 back to 4 lanes and is almost ALWAYS backed up because of this. The Stevenson has only 3 lanes outbound for the literal millions of people who live in the SW suburbs. The EL has slow zones on many lines that would just make you wonder what is going on. It is literally faster to drive on the Kennedy inbound during rush hour than take dedicated rail rapid transit because of this. O'Hare is a total mess in the mornings and the afternoons with no westbound access. There is no fast way for people to go north-south west of I-355, and IL-59 is a joke with only two lanes for the outer suburbs, and this is all through a shopping district with hundreds of traffic lights. And the entire system along with Metra is not integrated into one fare network. The only thing I can say is I'm glad I don't have to deal with these problems because of where I live and work, but not everyone is that lucky, and acting like people should just move while we turn a blind eye to REAL traffic/transit problems that is literally choking the city is just burying your head in the sand. Chicago is a transit HUB for not only cars but for trains and we need to remember that. There are more out of state license places driving through and around here than anywhere else in the country from my experience.

These are just off the top of my head. Chicago is in desperate need of fixing bottlenecks to get people moving. There seems to be an anti-highway attitude by some urbanites where fixing highway bottlenecks is actually needed so people who ALREADY live here aren't sitting and burning exhaust, coupled on the other side with an anti-transit attitude by some suburbanites when in order to get these people OFF the freeways, you have to have a CTA network that doesn't stop at O'Hare and before I-294 along the Eisenhower (i.e., the Blue line needs to be extended to it is actually practical for suburbanites to use it--as it stands now you still have to go through the worst of the congestion just to get to it).

[austin356]

Here again the market provides a complete solution without the need for additional taxes.

Lease off all limited access highways in America and allow them to be tolled by the leaseholders.
-then-
Take the revenue earned from the leases and plow it right back into additional infrastructure.
-while-
Using the current gas tax to pay for only surface streets and non-highways. Thus bringing up the quality of those.


So in the end result we could have a investment of at least a trillion dollars if private money is allowed in. We would end the subsidization of sprawl by providing free interstate commutes for the exurbanites. And we would have a basically endless supply of infrastructure revenue to fund transit and surface street projects.


This is already slowly beginning to happen (out of desperation) in Georgia, who is getting private companies (mostly investors such as goldman) to expand urban highways with tolls. It is already happening in Texas out of cost efficiency where highway maintenance in some cases is bidded off to private companies. And it is happening in Illinois/Indiana where interstates are being auctioned off to private investors.

[austin356]

It sucks because as far as politics goes, we are in between a rock and a hard place.

The Democrats have proven worthless because they will just use the money to do things like "end poverty" and give everyone "free health care" and throw more money at failing schools, like Blago here is doing in Illinois.

The Republicans have proven worthless because they refuse to cut military spending and waste so much money on the war in Iraq, and many of them don't support transit.

What we need is more anti-war, pro-transit Republicans or more Democrats who don't believe they can socially re-engineer society and would do more practical things like get people moving to and from work.

I myself notice the things the report talks about. It seems the US has completely forgotten to invest in infrastructure the past 15 years. It's funny because congestions and getting people moving efficiently in America's largest cities is becoming a big problem. Everyone complains about it and the people agree it is not just a priority but in many cities it is THE priority, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears from leaders.

From the top down we need to keep taxes in this country low, and start cutting the military budget and divert it towards infrastructure. I really think it is that simple. We have an incredible amount of money in this country that we are spending on military and social spending, as our roads become increasingly congested and our transit systems fall apart.

The good news is usually it takes a "crisis" for political leaders to wake up and I think we are on the verge of that.



You should watch the Republican debate on the 15th of this month. You will find one candidate that will do such....... while the rest just want to plow debt into the Military and Iraq.

[BTinSF]

You should watch the Republican debate on the 15th of this month. You will find one candidate that will do such....... while the rest just want to plow debt into the Military and Iraq.

It's off-topic, but I'll be watching for one of those candidates who doesn't want to make personal decisions for me like whether my conscience allows abortion or who I sleep with (or marry). When I find such a Republican (or Democrat)--one who wants to build up our infrastructure (your way or any way) and take care of the other ligitimate concerns of government while staying out of things that are none of government's business (including foreign "nation-building"), I'll start watching more closely.

[strandk]

US infrastructures are old not only in the transportation but also in the power lines too. --- The range of equipment nearing or beyond its projected service life is staggering: 70% of America’s roughly 160,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines are 25 years or older-- as are 70% of the more than 63,000 transformers; further, 60% of the nearly 200,000 circuit breakers are at least 30 years old. ---- It is worth noting that where a resident of Japan loses power roughly once every twenty years, Americans lose power once every nine months. ---- from http://www.energybulletin.net/29104.html

[Chicago103]

Here again the market provides a complete solution without the need for additional taxes.

Lease off all limited access highways in America and allow them to be tolled by the leaseholders.
-then-
Take the revenue earned from the leases and plow it right back into additional infrastructure.
-while-
Using the current gas tax to pay for only surface streets and non-highways. Thus bringing up the quality of those.


So in the end result we could have a investment of at least a trillion dollars if private money is allowed in. We would end the subsidization of sprawl by providing free interstate commutes for the exurbanites. And we would have a basically endless supply of infrastructure revenue to fund transit and surface street projects.


This is already slowly beginning to happen (out of desperation) in Georgia, who is getting private companies (mostly investors such as goldman) to expand urban highways with tolls. It is already happening in Texas out of cost efficiency where highway maintenance in some cases is bidded off to private companies. And it is happening in Illinois/Indiana where interstates are being auctioned off to private investors.

I dont often agree with you nor most libertarians most of the time but here I am with you 100%. Unfortunatly many conservatives arent as smart as you when it comes to this issue. They see free expressways as some God-given right or something. You can think free health care is bogus if you want but at the very least I think its reasonable to say something like free health care makes more sense to me than free roads and parking. Health care is about life and death, driving and parking is about luxury and convinience (at least to me). We have a welfare state of auto-centrism and sprawl and as an urban taxpayer I am appalled and yet I am considered a loon by most "low tax and the american way" conservatives.

[JManc]

freeways leads to cars which leads to oil and gas which leads to who the politicians are in bed with. yay for american politics!

[whyhuhwhy]

nm

[Mister Uptempo]

Here again the market provides a complete solution without the need for additional taxes.

Lease off all limited access highways in America and allow them to be tolled by the leaseholders.
-then-
Take the revenue earned from the leases and plow it right back into additional infrastructure.
-while-
Using the current gas tax to pay for only surface streets and non-highways. Thus bringing up the quality of those.


So in the end result we could have a investment of at least a trillion dollars if private money is allowed in. We would end the subsidization of sprawl by providing free interstate commutes for the exurbanites. And we would have a basically endless supply of infrastructure revenue to fund transit and surface street projects.


This is already slowly beginning to happen (out of desperation) in Georgia, who is getting private companies (mostly investors such as goldman) to expand urban highways with tolls. It is already happening in Texas out of cost efficiency where highway maintenance in some cases is bidded off to private companies. And it is happening in Illinois/Indiana where interstates are being auctioned off to private investors.

I say, let's go even further. Let's also lease the public transit system to private industry, and have the riders of those systems pay what a ride would really cost. No subsidization for them, either. The revenues realized from this should encourage further investment in building a true transit system in the suburbs, thus eliminating the need for driving even more.

[alexjon]

Toll the roads. The exclusivity of highways makes it a socially oppressive system. There are so many people that can't drive, whether they are too young, incapable, or too poor.

Further to that, I think that all infrastructure should be governmentally subsidized. Drivers rail on how much they contribute to transit, because "they don't use it", but they fail to realize that for every mile they drive, there are dozens more that they don't drive. They pay a fraction of a cost for a fraction of usage. Sounds like transit, don't it?

I like a nice road, a nice highway, a nice overpass, but I prefer a cohesive system that isn't driven by agoraphobics and the selfish.

[VivaLFuego]

I say, let's go even further. Let's also lease the public transit system to private industry, and have the riders of those systems pay what a ride would really cost. No subsidization for them, either. The revenues realized from this should encourage further investment in building a true transit system in the suburbs, thus eliminating the need for driving even more.

The problem with this is that the "true" cost of transit is highly dependent on how much people use it. I mean if relatively few people use it, the cost per revenue mile is much higher than if it has high utilization. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right, but does that make sense? You could only go to market based pricing if our development patterns were more similar to Asia, otherwise transit systems everywhere would collapse again like they did 50 years ago when everyone fled to live auto-centric suburbs...

[JACKinBeantown]

Take out the left lanes in each direction on every highway and put in a rail in each direction!

[ardecila]

I say, let's go even further. Let's also lease the public transit system to private industry, and have the riders of those systems pay what a ride would really cost. No subsidization for them, either. The revenues realized from this should encourage further investment in building a true transit system in the suburbs, thus eliminating the need for driving even more.

It wouldn't really encourage mass transit in the suburbs. Just as the government decides on transit projects based on merit and ridership, private businesses would decide on transit projects based on potential revenue (i.e. ridership). Large-scale suburban transit would be unprofitable.

The heart and soul of suburbia IS the automobile. Development patterns do not support transit - everything is too spread out to be effectively served by centralized stations - and it will stay that way for the forseeable future. Changing radically the fabric of neighborhoods in which thousands of middle to upper-class citizens live is not something that a few corporations can do single-handedly. The best they can do is use television shows and advertisements to promote a transit lifestyle, and then hope that the viewers will be influenced to choose locations based on transit.

That being said, many suburban areas have historic downtowns which are perfect for transit-oriented development along existing rail lines.

[ardecila]

The problem with this is that the "true" cost of transit is highly dependent on how much people use it. I mean if relatively few people use it, the cost per revenue mile is much higher than if it has high utilization. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right, but does that make sense? You could only go to market based pricing if our development patterns were more similar to Asia, otherwise transit systems everywhere would collapse again like they did 50 years ago when everyone fled to live auto-centric suburbs...

Makes sense. The transit company/agency still has to pay to run the train/bus no matter how many people are on it. If nobody rides, than the agency recoups absolutely nothing of their fixed operating costs. The more people ride per train/bus, the more of the fixed operating cost can be recouped. The balance of the operating cost that remains is the "true cost" as you put it.

Asian development patterns require that urban growth be centered around transit stations and managed/planned by the transit company. This way, the transit company can effectively control the amount of riders that their transit lines get, so that they will at least break even between their fares revenue and their fixed operating costs.

[BnaBreaker]

I guess this is what we get when we spend all our money on developing new ways to kill people, eh?

[Mister Uptempo]

The problem with this is that the "true" cost of transit is highly dependent on how much people use it. I mean if relatively few people use it, the cost per revenue mile is much higher than if it has high utilization. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right, but does that make sense? You could only go to market based pricing if our development patterns were more similar to Asia, otherwise transit systems everywhere would collapse again like they did 50 years ago when everyone fled to live auto-centric suburbs...

Actually, I was being somewhat facetious when I made that comment.

I just found it amusing that some in this thread would be willing to compromise their supposed beliefs, provided someone else's ox is getting gored. So, I wanted to see what kind of reaction I might get if we take these "libertarian" ideas to a further degree, goring others' oxes.

I think whyhuhwhy has a point. I agree that we need to try and stop the further expansion of suburban areas into precious farmland, but what about the people who are out in the suburbs right now? Seems like the solution some are offering is to let the "free market" stick it to the suburbs, where public transit is poor or non-existent, while the city enjoys a subsidized transit system as a result.

VivaLFuego, I absolutely agree that public transit needs to be subsidized in order to protect those routes that don't have the ridership that would make it self-supporting. The farebox recovery rates in the Chicago area as a whole, if I read correctly, hover right around 40-45%. CTA recovers 52%, Metra 55%, Pace 36%, Paratransit 10%. It is subsidized by a sales tax of 3% throughout the city and suburban Cook, and 1.5% in the collar counties.

Yet where I live in suburban Cook, public transit for my town means going to downtown Chicago or Joliet via Metra, or Orland Square Mall or the Harvey Transportation Center via Pace. Those Pace buses run once an hour, by the way. And that's it. Those are the choices that I have. And, I would imagine, it is indicative of public transit options for many, many suburbs.

That being said, suburbanites in Cook still pay the same percentage in sales tax to subsidize public transit as those in the city, who have many more public transit options. There are also more than twice as many people in the metro area that live outside the city limits than inside, meaning many more suburbanites pay to prop up public transit than city dwellers.

So, the idea that has been forwarded will give suburbanites three options...

First option, drive the leased expressways, which would become non-subsidized, and pay for the right to use them, while at the same time, continue to pay sales tax for a public transit system that does little to serve them.

Second option, use what little public transit that exists in their town, and if it doesn't serve their needs, tough sh*t. And still pay the sales tax for the terrible service.

Third option, use the surface roads that will be rebuilt using the monies from the leases of the expressways. If you think you have seen gridlock and pollution on the expressways, wait until commuters and truckers choose to use free surface roads instead of paying to drive the expressways. And still pay the tax for the bad public transit.

Well, what about the STAR line, some might point out. It will allow you to travel throughout the suburbs when built. Well, if the STAR line gets built as it is currently designed, it will not serve me, or many others who use the Metra/Heritage Corridor, Southwest Service, Rock Island District, Electric, or the proposed Southeast Service to the south, or the Union Pacific North.

When asked about the way the STAR line turns its backs on the south and southwest suburbs, Metra responded that they will "eventually" extend it to the South Shore line in Indiana. If someone can pull out a calendar and show me "eventually" on it, I'd be mighty surprised.

It was further explained that they weren't sure whether the south suburban leg of the STAR line could support itself, especially if that section was built in the initial phase. So, the "market forces" that would force a south suburbanite to pay to drive the expressways to work, are the same "market forces" that would shut out those same south suburbanites from an essential project like the STAR line, while still paying the sales tax to subsidize others with better public transit options.

VivaLFuego, didn't you establish that the purpose of subsidizing public transit is to provide transit options on routes that, if left to "market forces", would not be able to support themselves, thus unable to justify their existence? Then please explain the STAR line situation to me, because I am having a hard time understanding the rationale behind so many people getting screwed over. It's hardly the kind of thing that will encourage people to consider public transit as a viable option.

Also, if we allow "market forces" to dictate the allocation of new pay-to-drive expressways, you can pretty much guarantee that areas that are currently facing tough economic times will never be able to pick themselves up off the ground. The "market" will say that new expressways won't be built in areas that lack economic viability, and economic viability isn't possible without good roads. Only the areas that are doing well already will get any benefit.

The answer isn't pitting city vs. suburbs. The funding issues are much bigger than that. As others have already pointed out, it's absolutely ridiculous to continue to throw national treasure into a black hole(formally Iraq), for a handful of idiots trying to save face. Even worse, the division of wealth in the nation has been stood upon its head, while those who have benefited from this great upward rush of cash, namely the uber-rich, do everything in their power to keep from paying even the minimum amount required of them.

[JManc]

I guess this is what we get when we spend all our money on developing new ways to kill people, eh?

perhaps if we can convince congress that we could kill people with subways and light-rail trains, they would pay for it. :laugh:

[LMich]

Actually, I was being somewhat facetious when I made that comment.

Whew! I was thinking "can he really be serious"?

[VivaLFuego]

Actually, I was being somewhat facetious when I made that comment.

I just found it amusing that some in this thread would be willing to compromise their supposed beliefs, provided someone else's ox is getting gored. So, I wanted to see what kind of reaction I might get if we take these "libertarian" ideas to a further degree, goring others' oxes.

I think whyhuhwhy has a point. I agree that we need to try and stop the further expansion of suburban areas into precious farmland, but what about the people who are out in the suburbs right now? Seems like the solution some are offering is to let the "free market" stick it to the suburbs, where public transit is poor or non-existent, while the city enjoys a subsidized transit system as a result.

VivaLFuego, I absolutely agree that public transit needs to be subsidized in order to protect those routes that don't have the ridership that would make it self-supporting. The farebox recovery rates in the Chicago area as a whole, if I read correctly, hover right around 40-45%. CTA recovers 52%, Metra 55%, Pace 36%, Paratransit 10%. It is subsidized by a sales tax of 3% throughout the city and suburban Cook, and 1.5% in the collar counties.

Yet where I live in suburban Cook, public transit for my town means going to downtown Chicago or Joliet via Metra, or Orland Square Mall or the Harvey Transportation Center via Pace. Those Pace buses run once an hour, by the way. And that's it. Those are the choices that I have. And, I would imagine, it is indicative of public transit options for many, many suburbs.

That being said, suburbanites in Cook still pay the same percentage in sales tax to subsidize public transit as those in the city, who have many more public transit options. There are also more than twice as many people in the metro area that live outside the city limits than inside, meaning many more suburbanites pay to prop up public transit than city dwellers.

So, the idea that has been forwarded will give suburbanites three options...

First option, drive the leased expressways, which would become non-subsidized, and pay for the right to use them, while at the same time, continue to pay sales tax for a public transit system that does little to serve them.

Second option, use what little public transit that exists in their town, and if it doesn't serve their needs, tough sh*t. And still pay the sales tax for the terrible service.

Third option, use the surface roads that will be rebuilt using the monies from the leases of the expressways. If you think you have seen gridlock and pollution on the expressways, wait until commuters and truckers choose to use free surface roads instead of paying to drive the expressways. And still pay the tax for the bad public transit.

Well, what about the STAR line, some might point out. It will allow you to travel throughout the suburbs when built. Well, if the STAR line gets built as it is currently designed, it will not serve me, or many others who use the Metra/Heritage Corridor, Southwest Service, Rock Island District, Electric, or the proposed Southeast Service to the south, or the Union Pacific North.

When asked about the way the STAR line turns its backs on the south and southwest suburbs, Metra responded that they will "eventually" extend it to the South Shore line in Indiana. If someone can pull out a calendar and show me "eventually" on it, I'd be mighty surprised.

It was further explained that they weren't sure whether the south suburban leg of the STAR line could support itself, especially if that section was built in the initial phase. So, the "market forces" that would force a south suburbanite to pay to drive the expressways to work, are the same "market forces" that would shut out those same south suburbanites from an essential project like the STAR line, while still paying the sales tax to subsidize others with better public transit options.

VivaLFuego, didn't you establish that the purpose of subsidizing public transit is to provide transit options on routes that, if left to "market forces", would not be able to support themselves, thus unable to justify their existence? Then please explain the STAR line situation to me, because I am having a hard time understanding the rationale behind so many people getting screwed over. It's hardly the kind of thing that will encourage people to consider public transit as a viable option.

Also, if we allow "market forces" to dictate the allocation of new pay-to-drive expressways, you can pretty much guarantee that areas that are currently facing tough economic times will never be able to pick themselves up off the ground. The "market" will say that new expressways won't be built in areas that lack economic viability, and economic viability isn't possible without good roads. Only the areas that are doing well already will get any benefit.

The answer isn't pitting city vs. suburbs. The funding issues are much bigger than that. As others have already pointed out, it's absolutely ridiculous to continue to throw national treasure into a black hole(formally Iraq), for a handful of idiots trying to save face. Even worse, the division of wealth in the nation has been stood upon its head, while those who have benefited from this great upward rush of cash, namely the uber-rich, do everything in their power to keep from paying even the minimum amount required of them.

A few quick points (busy at work, blah blah):
-- The idea with the whole region paying for transit is that everyone benefits from its existence even if they don't use it, because of:
1. The reduction in traffic congestion throughout the entire region
2. Improved access to jobs for employees, improved access to labor market for employers
3. High density in the city means less city folk overrunning the quiet suburbs. Without transit we'd all sprawl out and push the suburbanites even farther.
4. Other more minor social benefits like relatively better air quality (compared to if everyone is driving) and reduced oil consumption (less demand = lower local prices, less consumption+lower prices= less money to dictators abroad

So even if you're not a user, you still reap benefits from transit, so taxing the entire region seems rather fair.

Also, regarding the STAR Line, that's a bit of a straw man since I never defended it and I'm not going to :)

[brickell]

I guess this is what we get when we spend all our money on developing new ways to kill people, eh?

Actually this is what happens when you spend all your money building new infrastructure further and further out. Forget all the cultural aspects of sprawl, this is why it's evil! New roads and sewers and powerlines are getting built, just in the wrong place.

[BnaBreaker]

Actually this is what happens when you spend all your money building new infrastructure further and further out. Forget all the cultural aspects of sprawl, this is why it's evil! New roads and sewers and powerlines are getting built, just in the wrong place.

Preach!

[Mister Uptempo]

A few quick points (busy at work, blah blah):
-- The idea with the whole region paying for transit is that everyone benefits from its existence even if they don't use it, because of:
1. The reduction in traffic congestion throughout the entire region
2. Improved access to jobs for employees, improved access to labor market for employers
3. High density in the city means less city folk overrunning the quiet suburbs. Without transit we'd all sprawl out and push the suburbanites even farther.
4. Other more minor social benefits like relatively better air quality (compared to if everyone is driving) and reduced oil consumption (less demand = lower local prices, less consumption+lower prices= less money to dictators abroad

So even if you're not a user, you still reap benefits from transit, so taxing the entire region seems rather fair.

Also, regarding the STAR Line, that's a bit of a straw man since I never defended it and I'm not going to :)

Your argument would make sense if applied to someone who lived in the suburbs and consciously chose not to use the public transit system.

It is the same thing as paying property taxes to support the local school system, even though you don't have any children. I pay my property taxes knowing that I help maintain a system that, if I ever chose to have children, quality schools would be there for me and my children, because others have the same obligation to support it. If I choose, in the end, to never have children, the system is still there. I have a viable option, one way or the other.

But in regards to transit issues in the suburbs, I pay into a system, via sales taxes, and I don't have the option to take public transit on a regular basis, because the transit choice is almost non-existent. There are others who do enjoy the fruits of the system, who pay no more than I do, and, in the case of the collar counties, less.

If the city would do a better job of fixing its problems, fewer people would feel the need to move to the suburbs.

What is being proposed here is that suburbanites are being forced to shoulder the cost of its biggest problem(sprawl), by paying to use expressways.

Apply the same philosophy to the city's problems(crime/poor school system), problems that drove many to the suburbs(creating sprawl) in the first place, then city dwellers should be slapped with an extra sales tax, or charges for police services or school usage in order to solve their problems.

I'm not sure what note you are attempting to strike with "less city folk overrunning the quiet suburbs", but if you are trying to play on "while flight", try it somewhere else.

I lived in the city the first 32 years of my life. I am the only member of my family living outside the city limits, so I am not some wide-eyed, fearful suburbanite caricature, quaking in their boots at the thought of the big, bad city. ;)

So even if you're not a user, you still reap benefits from transit, so taxing the entire region seems rather fair.

The whole point is that I would like to use transit, and I can't, which is worlds apart from choosing not to use a system that exists. I know that many more people in the suburbs would use transit, if it were available. Time and again, it has been shown that when safe, reliable public transit has been offered in the suburbs, it gets used. In my town, parking at the Metra stations has been expanded three times to accommodate demand. Suburbs are clamoring for expansion of Metra lines into their locales.

There is a pent-up demand, but no supply. That being said, many on this forum have made a sport of putting suburbanites on the pillory for their "auto-centric" culture. Yet when suburbanites seek an alternative to the automobile, namely public transit, we are told that we just can't have it. And the castigation of suburbia rolls on.

Regarding the STAR line, I merely brought it up to show how public transit subsidies are meant to protect the system from "market forces", yet "market forces" is the very same excuse given as to why the STAR line won't be available to a large swath of the metro area.

If I calculated correctly, the distance between the start of the STAR line in Joliet(Division Street), and the downtown Joliet station, which serves the Rock Island and Heritage Corridor, is only five miles. They are planning to build a 55-mile system, and can't seem to manage to go just 5 more stinking miles, nor could they figure out how to place a transfer point between the Rock Island and the Southwest Service, where they intersect in New Lenox.

[VivaLFuego]

Your argument would make sense if applied to someone who lived in the suburbs and consciously chose not to use the public transit system.

It is the same thing as paying property taxes to support the local school system, even though you don't have any children. I pay my property taxes knowing that I help maintain a system that, if I ever chose to have children, quality schools would be there for me and my children, because others have the same obligation to support it. If I choose, in the end, to never have children, the system is still there. I have a viable option, one way or the other.

But in regards to transit issues in the suburbs, I pay into a system, via sales taxes, and I don't have the option to take public transit on a regular basis, because the transit choice is almost non-existent. There are others who do enjoy the fruits of the system, who pay no more than I do, and, in the case of the collar counties, less.

If the city would do a better job of fixing its problems, fewer people would feel the need to move to the suburbs.

What is being proposed here is that suburbanites are being forced to shoulder the cost of its biggest problem(sprawl), by paying to use expressways.

Apply the same philosophy to the city's problems(crime/poor school system), problems that drove many to the suburbs(creating sprawl) in the first place, then city dwellers should be slapped with an extra sales tax, or charges for police services or school usage in order to solve their problems.

I'm not sure what note you are attempting to strike with "less city folk overrunning the quiet suburbs", but if you are trying to play on "while flight", try it somewhere else.

I lived in the city the first 32 years of my life. I am the only member of my family living outside the city limits, so I am not some wide-eyed, fearful suburbanite caricature, quaking in their boots at the thought of the big, bad city. ;)



The whole point is that I would like to use transit, and I can't, which is worlds apart from choosing not to use a system that exists. I know that many more people in the suburbs would use transit, if it were available. Time and again, it has been shown that when safe, reliable public transit has been offered in the suburbs, it gets used. In my town, parking at the Metra stations has been expanded three times to accommodate demand. Suburbs are clamoring for expansion of Metra lines into their locales.

There is a pent-up demand, but no supply. That being said, many on this forum have made a sport of putting suburbanites on the pillory for their "auto-centric" culture. Yet when suburbanites seek an alternative to the automobile, namely public transit, we are told that we just can't have it. And the castigation of suburbia rolls on.

Regarding the STAR line, I merely brought it up to show how public transit subsidies are meant to protect the system from "market forces", yet "market forces" is the very same excuse given as to why the STAR line won't be available to a large swath of the metro area.

If I calculated correctly, the distance between the start of the STAR line in Joliet(Division Street), and the downtown Joliet station, which serves the Rock Island and Heritage Corridor, is only five miles. They are planning to build a 55-mile system, and can't seem to manage to go just 5 more stinking miles, nor could they figure out how to place a transfer point between the Rock Island and the Southwest Service, where they intersect in New Lenox.

So, why don't you live in a built environment more conducive to transit service? If there were market for transit service in your location, there would probably be more. If transit is so important to you, then move to an area where you feel like your transit tax money is giving you the benefit you deserve. Serving YOU with transit would require an even bigger subsidy than serving US with transit. You ARE choosing to not use a system that exists by virtue of where you've chosen to live; a location that benefits from the rest of us using transit, as opposed to a location that benefits from having transit. I wish it were feasible to run frequent transit everywhere, even in the sparesely populated suburbs, but that of course would require an ever larger public subsidy. By your logic, any sprawltastic locale should be exempt from paying a transit tax because by definition there will never be decent transit service there, a point I thought I already argued against...

And of course, we still have all these problems here (as opposed to in the suburbs) because so many suburbanites ran away from them....I'm a product of Chicago Public Schools, and turned out just fine, and so would your kids if you sent them to public school. And we already pay for our police force through property tax, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be combative or rude, but I do think you missed my point (i'll try to recompose it later) that non-users in the suburbs still benefit from transit. Of course, without numbers its just subjective conjecture, but even the people out in Barrington Hills where a bus will never run benefit from transit service, and so should be part of paying for it...

[VivaLFuego]

edit, double post

[Mister Uptempo]

So, why don't you live in a built environment more conducive to transit service? If there were market for transit service in your location, there would probably be more. If transit is so important to you, then move to an area where you feel like your transit tax money is giving you the benefit you deserve. Serving YOU with transit would require an even bigger subsidy than serving US with transit.

I believe that public transit service can be a success in the suburbs, provided transit planners actually put some time & effort into addressing the issue.

If transit were the only issue, then moving back into the city would be an idea worth considering. But it isn't.

It seems that many here(possibly you as well) would have no problem forcing suburbanites to "pay their way", through a system of leased, non-subsidized highways, but the thought of having city dwellers pay the true price of their transit(if transit subsidies were to evaporate like highway dollars would) seems to turn the stomach of many of the same pay-to-drive highway advocates.

It appears to come down to the notion that it is fair and right that the city has its hands shoved deep into suburban pockets, but that the city's pockets are off limits. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, right?

You ARE choosing to not use a system that exists by virtue of where you've chosen to live; a location that benefits from the rest of us using transit, as opposed to a location that benefits from having transit. By your logic, any sprawltastic locale should be exempt from paying a transit tax because by definition there will never be decent transit service there, a point I thought I already argued against...

You may have argued against it, but merely arguing a point doesn't necessarily make it so.

You seem to put forth the argument that living in the suburbs must mean poor transit options indefinitely, because it has always been so. Are you then saying that because someone chooses to live in the city, that they chose poor schools and streets that can be unsafe, as if they were problems that were unchangeable and immutable? Are you saying that all things must always stay as they have been, because it is beyond all power to change it?

I am trying to advocate that there be a little more equity in the system than is being discussed in this thread.

So many here feel the urge to beat suburbanites over the head because they do not use public transit. But how can they, when there isn't any? When the only option to get to many places is by car, you use what you have. But, then, they are participating in destructive, "auto centric" practices. And, from your responses, providing a decent level of public transit for the suburbs can't be done, either.

Then, what, exactly, do you want suburbanites to do? Miracle themselves to their destinations?

Should all suburbanites move back into the city? Do you have a place for 6,000,000+ new residents to move into? And how will they be able to afford to move back into the city, if no one will buy their current residence, with everyone headed back into the city, and all?

And of course, we still have all these problems here (as opposed to in the suburbs) because so many suburbanites ran away from them....

So, are you saying that the city's ills are a result of suburbanites, and that the only ones left in within the city limits are those woefully unable to address the important issues that face them? Have a little more faith.

Earlier, you suggested that I move to an area with better transit, if I was so unsatisfied with my current situation.

Isn't that the same kind of reasoning people use when they, as you put it, "run away"(nice try at trying to lower the level of the discussion with schoolyard language) into the suburbs, the only difference being the reason for "running away"? How is it justifiable in one case, and not in another?

Families were dissatisfied with the options of education and safety presented them in the city, so they "ran away" to the suburbs, as if they were cowardly, yet moving from one place to another for transit options is alright in your eyes.

I'm a product of Chicago Public Schools, and turned out just fine, and so would your kids if you sent them to public school.

I'm happy for you. It's great to hear. But your personal success is not necessarily indicative of the system's performance as a whole, as you might be willing to admit yourself.

And we already pay for our police force through property tax, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

I am saying that, in this thread, it is expected for suburbanites to have to pay a premium, over and above what they already contribute in taxes, in the form of pay-to-drive expressways, because it will mitigate problems the suburbs have caused, mainly sprawl. But the city has many problems of its own, but no one is asking city residents to cough up anything over and above to mitigate the problems the city has caused.

[VivaLFuego]

Ok, you're ascribing positions that others took to me; I'm only discussing why I feel transit funding is a regional issue. Where did I say earlier on the thread that all suburbanites and only suburbanites should pay through the nose for highways? You keep pulling out these arguments that I never made...I mean ideally none of it would be subsidized, but that's near impossible to acheive seeing as how entrenched auto and transit subsidization are, so let's look at responsible ways to acheive some fairness to let the transportation modes compete on a level field.

You say you want good transit service, which transit planners would be happy to provide if they had the money to do so, but in the meantime they'll focus on providing services where they at least have an opportunity to acheive a presentable recovery ratio from fares.

Suburbanites shouldn't all move back to the city, but they should live in communities that are designed in a more responsible and ped/transit-friendly manner, particularly if they expect transit service.

I brought up education because I think its a very poor reason to flee the city; the quality of a school system is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. I turned out fine, well-read and well-educated because of how my parents brought me up, and so would your kids if they grew up in the city because you'd care about their education and what they learn. Safety? Well, I've been mugged once in my life, but I'd rather be mugged at 16 (i.e. no risk of death) than die in a flaming car wreck, which is a bit of an epidemic out there where cars are a lifeblood, and of course the means of transport for teens to parties. Speaking of straw men and red herrings....

In short, I think you're completely missing the connection between built environment, cultural norms, and transit. Transit just doesn't work in most American suburbs; they are built too sparsely, and no one will take it. It's just the way it is. They'll only see high quality and high quantity transit if the transit subsidy is massively increased. Perhaps like education, it is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy (people don't take it because its not there, but its not there because people wouldn't take it). Bottom line: If transit is important to you, you should live in a location that's more conducive to transit service. And, though OT, I really don't think you have to worry about your kids safety or education if they were growing up in Chicago.

[ardecila]

This is getting ridiculous. First of all, like Viva said, by living in the suburb that you do, you ARE consciously choosing not to use transit.

Your school analogy, to me, held no water. Good-quality public schools (which is NOT the same thing as well-funded, btw) benefit everybody because they make the city/town they are in more attractive and competitive. You receive the benefits of this regardless of whether you have children because more competitive cities/towns bring in better businesses and have better community amenities like parks and organizations.

In a similar way, your paying for public transit improves the competitiveness of your suburb and Chicagoland as a whole.

You say you want reliable public transit, but you live in a suburban environment that is incompatible with reliable transit without major restructuring. Homes and businesses are cut off from the main roads on which bus routes run, by retention ponds, security fences, whatever. Sidewalks do not exist to allow people in the area to walk to bus stops, and they certainly can't drive there - where would they park? Destinations are all over the place, too - office parks and shopping centers are scattered around too much to be served well by transit.

Most major rail lines in the suburbs already carry Metra service, with stations placed logically in suburban town centers, as well as some infill stations. Transfer stations are difficult because 1) There would be long waits at those stations, and 2) Rail crossings are often in out-of-the way locations.

New Lenox, however, seems like a good candidate for a transfer station for several reasons. Also, I'm pretty sure Metra will bring the STAR Line terminal into downtown Joliet somehow. Joliet will push for it, I'm sure.

[nomarandlee]

The bottom line and I say this is a suburbanite I have no sympathy for those in suburbs who claim that they get a lack of transit services. First, unless you live in the inner ring burbs we should likely not even be living out here if you want true access to transit. If you are living forty-five minutes away (Arlington Hts. for me) from the hub of the region it is unfair to be expect to have great numerous transit options. Not everyone can have their half acre homes and be reasonable connected to transit nodes all over the metro. Not happening. I would have some sympathy if more communities did what Palestine or Arliginton Hts. are doing to a degree (and a few are) and lifted zoning for their downtown's and let real dense high rises be built around their stations within a four block radius. But in many places the nimbs think it would ruin the "charecther" of the downtown or cause too many traffic back ups. It is not really fair to bitch and complain when towns are not utilitizing to the maximum what they do have. 90% of the suburbs are too sprawled, too disjointed, and too far gone to effectively set up an efficient transit system and are effectively a lost cause. The best hope we can have for the burbs are making little islands of pleasant dense urbanity around the downtown's and stations.

Or maybe one day if enough people get a little brave and tell their city councils they want to destroy the endless strip malls around major corridors and built some ped-friendly islands that would actually warrant regular suburban bus service. Or maybe one day if there are enough of those nodes it may even justify suberb to suberb service like the Star Line propes (which I think is largely a waste). Those days are a damn long way away if ever though because people would rather build out by DeKalb one day to get bigger houses on more land and then complain why they are not getting frequent service to Chicago when they want it.

If one wants to live in the burbs, which I don't necessarily begrudge, then live near a station and push your community to increase density around it and work for better and more frequent Metra service.

[Mister Uptempo]

Ok, you're ascribing positions that others took to me; I'm only discussing why I feel transit funding is a regional issue. Where did I say earlier on the thread that all suburbanites and only suburbanites should pay through the nose for highways? You keep pulling out these arguments that I never made...I mean ideally none of it would be subsidized, but that's near impossible to acheive seeing as how entrenched auto and transit subsidization are, so let's look at responsible ways to acheive some fairness to let the transportation modes compete on a level field.

True, you didn't, but in addressing my responses, I was also addressing the thread as a whole; note how I wrote things like, "many on this thread", and such.

I have been saying from the start, that equity needs to be discussed. I've said it several times. That was my point for initially posting in this thread. It will be a process of give and take, but the premise put forth in this thread(not necessarily by you) is that the suburbs, by virtue of having no other option than to use autos, on the pay-to-drive expressways, give, and the city, with options to drive or use transit, takes. Is that the definition of equity?

You say you want good transit service, which transit planners would be happy to provide if they had the money to do so, but in the meantime they'll focus on providing services where they at least have an opportunity to acheive a presentable recovery ratio from fares.

If the numbers I cited earlier in the thread are correct, Metra outpaces CTA in farebox recovery, which should justify more service throughout the Metra system, no?

Suburbanites shouldn't all move back to the city, but they should live in communities that are designed in a more responsible and ped/transit-friendly manner, particularly if they expect transit service.

And I think that has been happening to some degree, has it not? The number of TODs has grown a lot in recent years. But those TODs were possible because the train line was put through first, and not after the TODs were built. Seems like the existence of the transportation can help foster more transit friendly growth, instead of the other way around.

I brought up education because I think its a very poor reason to flee the city; the quality of a school system is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. I turned out fine, well-read and well-educated because of how my parents brought me up, and so would your kids if they grew up in the city because you'd care about their education and what they learn. Safety? Well, I've been mugged once in my life, but I'd rather be mugged at 16 (i.e. no risk of death) than die in a flaming car wreck, which is a bit of an epidemic out there where cars are a lifeblood, and of course the means of transport for teens to parties. Speaking of straw men and red herrings....

I guess we are going to have to disagree on issues like safety and schools. Those issues are vitally important to many when decisions like where to live are considered. When I talk to married friends and former classmates, education and safe streets almost always seem to be their biggest priorities.

For the record, I was assaulted outside my high school, had the palm of my left hand slashed open on the Red Line, had my pocket picked twice, and ended up in the middle of a fight between a CTA bus driver and a member of the Keystone Rangers. So I value safety, perhaps more than you, I don't know.

In short, I think you're completely missing the connection between built environment, cultural norms, and transit. Transit just doesn't work in most American suburbs; they are built too sparsely, and no one will take it. It's just the way it is. They'll only see high quality and high quantity transit if the transit subsidy is massively increased. Perhaps like education, it is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy (people don't take it because its not there, but its not there because people wouldn't take it). Bottom line: If transit is important to you, you should live in a location that's more conducive to transit service. And, though OT, I really don't think you have to worry about your kids safety or education if they were growing up in Chicago.

I find it difficult to believe that the best that transit can offer a suburb like mine is a train line into downtown and a once-an-hour busline that goes pretty much nowhere.

Earlier in your response, you discussed responsible ways of achieving fairness. What constitutes fairness to you? Who gets what? Who pays? How much? Why?

When it comes to where I live, I believe it makes just as much sense to stay and try to actually cobble together some solutions, instead of just "running away".

[zaphod]

Personally I doubt private companies owning the highways would do anything but make infrastructure in the US even worse and increase the cost of living for everyone.

about how power lines was part of this, have any other details? to me that sounds more important than highways

[Justin10000]

North America is so screwed in 25 years.

While the rest of the world invests in improving their countries, Canada, and the US waste time, and money in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Pathetic.

[alexjon]

perhaps if we can convince congress that we could kill people with subways and light-rail trains, they would pay for it. :laugh:

Dude

Best comment ever

[i-215]

Privatizing the interstates would grind America's economy to a halt.

The problem with privatizing the highways is that in too many situations, they found people will not drive them. In most cases the state had to bail out a private investor who bailed on the road.

Examples include Camino Columbia Road in South Texas. They were ambitious thinking all this truck traffic to/from Mexico would use it and pay for improvements (like bringing it up to freeway standards). Instead the state had to bail it out for more money than it cost to build it in the first place.

It's being held up as an example of why the Trans-Texas Corridor shouldn't be build. It would be a privatized super-freeway.

Another example is SR-241 in Orange County. They thought surely people would pay the $5 to avoid traffic on I-5. It never even met opening expectations, let alone 5-10 year projections. Now the state of California is refinancing the tollway over and over sort of like how somebody who really can't afford the size of house they're in, so they refinance over and over. In the end the state of California will pay for SR-241 forever....rather than once.

The answer would be to build more mass-transit in town. Subways and rail induce highrise development, just as freeways induce suburbs. A balance of both is healthy.

Do you realize we could've built 1000+ miles of new "city" interstate (or rail) for each year we are in Iraq. Really a shame.

[The Cheat]

Isn't the purpose of the US being in Iraq to ensure stability in the Middle East so that the flow of cheap petroleum continues?