Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Vote no because driverless cars!

Posted in:

Illinois

* An otherwise pretty well-reasoned Better Government Association argument against the proposed transportation “lockbox” amendment includes this weird little dot point…

The lockbox could restrict the use of new funds that might not be necessary for decades, including revenues from driverless cars and biking, which could decrease the need for road maintenance.

A bit of a stretch, particularly since “driverless cars” (which aren’t yet driverless and won’t be for a long time) will undoubtedly cost more money because their backers are already demanding things like special lanes and blocked off streets.

* Related…

* Illinois League of Women Voters statement on Transportation Lockbox

* Ray LaHood and Ed Rendell: Vote ‘yes’ on roads amendment

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 2:29 pm

Comments

=including revenues from driverless cars and biking, which could decrease the need for road maintenance.= Could someone explain how driverless cars reduce road maintenance? Also not e these bike trails will need to be maintained at some point….sealcoating, an overlay at 20 years or so.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 2:32 pm
From LaHood and Rendell- “If you believe in transparency and accountability, then the Safe Roads Amendment should have your support. There really is light at the end of the tunnel.”

Yep… that light will be the scrutiny that will have to be done AFTER the fact to clear up all the problems with the lockbox once it becomes evident that there are unintended consequences (see CapFax yesterday on license plate fees).

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 2:40 pm
Right now, the driverless car is the car that nobody sent. It is a wanna be car that is not even close to being ready for prime time.

The whole issue of funding road construction is in a flux. Various politicians are looking at different ways to get more money into road construction and maintenance. One of these schemes is a tax on the miles driven, rather than the gallon of gas. This idea takes into consideration the high mileage and electric cars. Oregon is running a pilot program with volunteers.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 2:40 pm
If “Fast Eddie Rendell” is for it, I think I just became agin’ it. That man is a virus.

Comment by Any mouse Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 2:55 pm
I voted for it when I voted Sunday. I am sick of taking from Peter to pay Paul.

Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:06 pm
Internet, Skype, and virtual reality are also reducing the need for travel and road maintenance. How does that affect this vote?

Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:07 pm
So, the major papers and Andy Shaw say they want more bipartisanship, more governmental accountability, and a stronger economic base. And what do they do? Come out against the lockbox amendment, which hits all of those targets.

Comment by phocion Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:11 pm
VMT is a non starter even more than driverless cars, especially given the problems Oregon has had with their pilot program. Also since the General Assembly treats a raise in the gas tax like it would cause rioting in the streets, conserving what funding is put towards roads is a logical step to maintaining safe infrastructure. Being a transportation hub is an advantage that Illinois desperately cannot allow to go by the wayside.

Comment by Southern Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:17 pm
Meh, Andy Shaw is just saying something outrageous hoping to get some free media attention, and Rich Miller fell for the oldest trick in the book and gave him an entire blog post to talk about Andy Shaw.

Comment by Not It Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:17 pm
Ed Rendell? Does he think there’s another Rauner payday in this for him?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:58 pm