Advanced Search
Excuse Me While I Drive on Subsidies
The prevailing view amongst many conservative politicians, as well as the highway industry (surprise, surprise) is that highways pay for themselves through user fees. We've written about that claim on several occasions, most recently here.
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) has recently released a report on the issue, entitled "Do Roads Pay for Themselves?" The report examines highway funding in depth, and points out several elements of the cost of highways that usually don't receive attention. Additionally, it provides a resounding ‘no’ to the question in the title.
To begin with, the most well-known and utilized highway user fee – the gas tax – actually uses a questionable definition of 'user'. Streetsblog DC has a good analysis of this conundrum, with several examples of how people can pay the gas tax without ever being users of highways. Any gas that is purchased for lawnmowers, for example, does not end up being used on the highways.
There is also the case of gas being purchased for a car that never leaves local or private roads. In general, there is no direct connection between the taxes one pays for gas and how much they use the highways. The key word here is ‘direct’, because highway advocates often fall back onto claims that property taxes are an indirect form of user fees, since roads and highways connect properties. This is an argument for another post, however.
After examining the fact that user fees (even with the vague definition of ‘user’) only cover 51% of highway funding, the U.S. PIRG report then discusses the significant effects of highways that are not as discussed as they should be.
Framing arguments over highway expansion by only looking at funding is an approach with a very limited scope. As Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns has said, the questions in highway expansion often don’t begin with ‘should we build…’ but instead begin with ‘where can we find funding to build…’
The costs of roads and highways are not limited to construction, as U.S. PIRG points out, because they also incur costs to the environment through pollution. Another cost they incur is encouraging and enabling suburban sprawl, which carries a host of costs to the environment and the economy.
These are indirect costs, but they merit consideration when we discuss roads and the funding they require.
The U.S. PIRG report, along with statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, makes it clear that roads do not pay for themselves. This means that the open road, much as conservatives attempt to idolize it (especially above other modes), is subsidized.
As William Lind, author of Moving Minds: Conservatives for Public Transportation, said in an interview with Grist, “a lot of the incoming Republicans will have bought the libertarian line, that transit is subsidized and highways are not. Factually, that couldn't be more wrong.”
In a political environment where ‘subsidy’ is an evil word, conservatives should own up to the fact that highways are subsidized before making their arguments. Relying on false pretenses is dishonest and (policy-wise) counter-productive. Sadly, it’s something of a political norm.
Posted in Transportation | Related Topics: Roads & Highways Fuel Tax
24 Comments
April 27, 2011 at 6:06 pm
I think the “zealots” argument, as cogent reasoning for significantly increased funding for transit, could use a little polish before we try it out on legislators and with the public? Certainly we can do better?
April 27, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Yes, we will all pay, through our taxes as usual. We are paying for a public good that private companies cannot provide, not without monopolizing the field and charging exorbitant fees.
It’s one of the things we are entitled to.
I commented a couple of days ago on this. Why do we think everything has to make a profit?
April 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The premise for how Metro Transit is funded is not at issue. The question of proposed cuts to the Met Council budget is a different issue. My understanding is that the new light rail line is budget for in terms of how Metro Transit would pay for its operation.
However, if the zealots in the legislature get their way and make REDUCTIONS to the annual appropriations to the Met Council, yes, without question, that would be a problem. Yes, without question, that would leave huge gaps to fill. Duh.
Republicans in the legislature are proposing enormous cuts to many state agencies. Cuts on the order of 15-25% would, obviously, leave huge, yawning chasms between the services previously offered by these agencies and what they might be able to afford following such eviscerating cuts.
Here’s a thought…... cuts of that magnitude are a really, very, bad and terrible idea.
Here’s another thought. A budget solution more along the lines of what Gov. Dayton has proposed would result in cuts to state agencies much, much smaller. Some agencies might not see cuts at all.
Dayton’s budget is a much better idea.
Why should I have to sell something that works fine now, but the zealots in the legislature aren’t implored to “sell” why slashing government agencies upwards of 20 or 25%??? Make no mistake: cuts of that magnitude are lunacy and indefensible.
As it stands now, a reasonable budget solution will perhaps result in moderate cuts to agencies like the Met Council—cuts that the agency would be able to manage without the problems you seem to assume in filling “gaps.”
The only relevant gaps are the spaces between the ears of the zealots in the legislature pretend to want resolve the deficit through cuts and cuts alone. I say pretend, because although they have given a lot of lip service to the “cuts and cuts alone” strategy, they have yet to produce a balanced budget.
Transit is an investment, dude. Think home mortgage or 401-K. Yes, they cost money now, but we kick in what we have to, we continue to make our monthly contributions, and one day, we’re awfully glad to have done so. Did you go to college? Did you take out loans to pay for your tuition and other expenses? That was an investment in your future and, hopefully, you’re finding that it was a smart one. But one thing is clearly common to each investment I’ve used as a comparison here: they cost money. More precisely, they cost smart money. Smart money is what we spend now that pays off for us huge later. That is the nature of investment in mass transit.
Just because the zealots in the legislature don’t see that—or worse yet—don’t care, doesn’t mean we still should, and still can, make those investments.
April 27, 2011 at 2:17 pm
“No need to sell this?” What? Last time I looked the MN House bill that passed knocked $130 million out of the funding and the MN Senate bill that was passed knocked out just over $30 million. The final number isn’t in, but that doesn’t bode well does it? And that’s just about trying to run what we already have.
This “blanket a much larger area with transit” plan would take a huge increase in funding, not less, wouldn’t it? Given the actual numbers in those two relevant votes in St. Paul right now, the “who pays” doesn’t look all that assured to me. The entity you suggest, the Met Council, is looking at cuts, not the huge increases that would be needed. Are doing something about that? Please share the plan!
I’m sorry, I didn’t experience any significant closure of the gap between a mere idea and at least the outline of a solid plan (in your answer.) It’s funny, because anybody that reads my posts knows that I’m more inclined to be on your side…again, sorry.
April 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Again, I’ll play along…..
No need to sell this; that part was accomplished many years ago. The long-established premise for operating Metro Transit is that funds for doing so come from the Met Council budget.
The money in the Met Council budget comes from the state’s General Fund.
The state’s General Fund revenue comes from, among other things, you and me—via income, sales and other taxes.
How is it that you perceive this to be “generalities?”
I hope that’s enough specificity for you. If not, I have no clue what would satisfy your plea for specificity.
April 27, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I wasn’t kidding. I appreciate that you took the time to reply, and by my standards, you don’t really answer the “who will pay” question. This takes more than mere generalities. “We all pay?” And just how will that occur, exactly?
Regardless of all the inauthenticities that resulted in us getting into this difficult situation, looking at our budget problems that are far from resolved, how are you going to sell this? I’m sorry, but I see a significant gap between the theory and the make-it-happen reality. Is it “obtuse” to point out the need for closing that gap, or is it “obtuse” to have pretense about the need to be specific and clear about the who/how/what/why of it? If we can’t close that gap, here, build a consensus here… what are the odds of taking this successfully out to the whole state?
I just don’t want to have this be like what is passing for a budget debate nationally, with one selfish “showdown” after another, and so little being accomplished. Respectful straight-talk is the path to enduring progress…
April 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I guess I don’t understand the question, “who is going to pay…” I mean, isn’t that obvious? Are you kidding me with that question?
I’ll play along…
We ALL pay, us; the citizens of the State of Minnesota. Those operational costs would be part of the budget for the Metropolitan Council in this case, since they’re the agency that runs MetroTransit. The Met Council, if I understand correctly, receives its money from the state’s General Fund (although they may have other funding sources, as well; I don’t know).
And, we all SHOULD pay. Another conservative myth is that if one doesn’t choose to use mass transit, one shouldn’t have to pay for it. Or the variation on that myth—if one lives in out-state Minnesota, why should one’s tax dollars be used to fund mass transit in the Twin Cities metro. My response: yes, we should all have to pay for mass transit. As a previous poster mentioned, mass transit is far cheaper than trying to build additional highway capacity—additional capacity which will soon be insufficient, anyway. If I, and 50,000 people like me choose to use mass transit every day to get to work, that choice essentially increases our freeway capacity by 50,000 vehicles during rush-hour which eases YOUR commute. I benefit because I’m not driving, not buying gas for my car and a spot to park in downtown Minneapolis. YOU benefit because you’re less likely to be stuck in gridlock traffic. We all benefit; we all pay.
Yes, even people in out-state Minnesota will benefit and should pay a share of the cost. Why? Because that cost, paid from the state’s general fund, improves commerce and livability in the Twin Cities metro. Those improvements make for a better, healthier, more resiliant and robust metro economy which is closely intertwined with out-state Minnesota and means an improved state economy.
We all benefit; we all pay. That’s how things are supposed to. It seems pretty simple to me.
April 27, 2011 at 11:32 am
I never once said that there would be no operating losses, did I? What do you call putting words in somebody else’s mouth, and then pretending that’s what they said?
I keep asking WHO is going to pay. That’s the question that keeps getting ducked. State, County, City, Metro Area, or? Until you can find a way to do that, it’s just good intentions.
(There’s an old adage about that…)
As for being willing to stand up for the Common Good, you’ll find no bigger Champion. And that will always take a great plan to implement the ideas… if I’m accused of being “obtuse” by insisting on seeing more facts and a plan, rather than merely good intentions and observations, what does that say? Show me how anything gets done… which is what we all want… from there?
* A research question of the day? Purely to give perspective, not as a policy indicator, what amount of money has been transferred out of the gas taxes collected in this state and used for things other than roadways? You might be surprised…
April 27, 2011 at 10:59 am
Here’s the point you’re either failing to see, KJC, or about which you’re being deliberately obtuse.
When you use the phrase “operating losses,” there lies behind it the implicit assumption that the light rail line is supposed to attain a financial goal of breaking even (or turning a profit). You’re presuming that it’s supposed to pay for itself, at least with respect to operational costs.
As I have written many times here and elsewhere, public transportation systems have never been intended to pay for themselves any more than roads or airports or freeways or ports bring in sufficient revenue to pay their own operational costs. These are all facets of public transportation. Do the roads or freeways you drive your car over pay for their operational costs? No, and no rational person would ever suggest they should. In the same way as national defense or clean air, these public goods—things we all need and all benefit from and that are impractical for us to provide for ourselves individually—are necessary in order for our society to provide the means of commerce and in order for our communities to be livable.
There is a conservative myth that we need to kill and bury—it is the myth that mass transit systems are wasteful boondoggles because they can never overcome “operating losses.” Not so. There are costs associated with the multi-modal transportation system our society requires for commerce and livability and the operational costs of mass transit is merely one of them.
The gas tax doesn’t even come CLOSE to paying the operational costs of roads and highways. Some studies that have been mentioned here recently estimate that the revenue raised by the gas tax provides, at most, about 41% of the cost of building, repairing, and maintaining our roadways. So….. how about those “operating losses?”
Conservatives like to hide behind arguments like “operational losses” because many people will fall for the idea that, “yeah…. the light rail ticket prices (or the bus system ticket prices) never come close to charging enough for the service they offer—they’re subsidized by the government!”
Pretty much ALL transportation is subsidized, HEAVILY, by the government. And you know what? It’s supposed to be because we could not maintain a society if government did not step in to assist in the provision of certain, essential assets that society requires. Transportation is one of them—roads, bridges, sidewalks, bike trails, buses, trains, airports, air traffic control, sea ports, etc. These are assets our society requires no less than national defense and that’s one of the principal reasons why we create government in the first place.
So, please, stop being obtuse and claiming that mass transit like the light rail or the bus can never seem to overcome their “operating losses,” because neither do the roads you drive on. They’re not supposed to.
April 27, 2011 at 10:25 am
I never suggested building a single new road, did I?
This makes your entire communication suspect, as it appears to start with a premise not in evidence?
You completely sidestep the biggest issue, borne out in the paper again today. Yes, the Federal dollars are there to pay for half the cost of building the Central Corridor.
So the difficulty isn’t getting money to build these things… it’s who will eat the rather large on-going operating losses. When somebody gets on this list and starts answering THAT question, we’ll have some real progress on the how-to-get-more-mass-transit in the near future question. Or, do you really believe the ticket prices are covering the costs? If you think yes, you better go do your homework.
I haven’t for a moment pretended that there are any easy answers on this issue… just that things have to be kept working while we find our way.
I find that there are even more perverse things afoot when you did deeper in this topic. Such as? When asked about mass transit, there is some public support… but when pressed some percentage are only for it for other people to use it! (To clear the highways so they can drive apparently.) Meaning, they don’t intend to use it themselves. It’s always easier to be “for” something others are supposed to be doing?
This is the on-going issue of our times. Just as so many run around recommending budget cuts, when I asked ... on this site… people what budgets cuts they’d be willing to accept for themselves (and gave an easy list to begin choosing from) not a single person stepped forward with a “here’s the budget sacrifice I’ll take myself.”
Leading is done by example, not mere rhetoric, what are you willing to do?
I’m not taking a stand for “roads,” I’m taking a stand for having life work for the regular citizens, and that includes our transportation system… now and in the future. If you think that’s going to be done with a lot less road use in the near future, I want to see your plan… including how to pay for it… on how you’re going to do that. I hope you do it. This is way different then dressing up complaints and observations and having opinions (which we all have!) and expecting “somebody else” to make it happen. That “somebody else” is all of US, in the “We The People” country. If you don’t think that’s worth your time to do, please don’t expect me to “buy” into it, especially after starting with a premise that I never said.
Sorry, I’m just insisting on a straight-talk conversation, as that’s what I see to be the value of having any real discussion in the first place!
April 27, 2011 at 5:55 am
KJC, to keep building roads in the manner of the last fifty years will hasten the decline of our city. That method of transportation and infrastructure expansion doesn’t work anymore and urban planners know it. Gobbling up land and prmoting low density development that demands more road building and huge infrastructure expansion is suicide. In this tax revenue environment that simply can’t be done. We have to make do with the roads we have and add transit, that’s what structures a city and leads to much more efficient expansion and redevelopment. The Central Corridor is where it should start and other spokes in the wheel should be approved that will alleviate pressure on roads as bus lines are added that will make suburban commuting to the city possible for a large chunk of the metro. Believe me, as gas prices escalate there will be plenty of riders willing to make the commute. At some point we have to take control of the future and find a way to create an urban environment that works. Continuing to rely on roads will be disastrous, once the economy rebounds and they fill up again. Lost productivity and lives and businesses ruined by the time and money lost in commuting is an absurd prospect to allow through inertia.
April 26, 2011 at 9:54 am
I haven’t missed it all. Nobody is even proposing what you suggest, it’s just an idea, not a solid plan. Things need to work, right now.
It would be interesting to have what you suggest go to a public referendum or? Maybe you should take it to the Met Council? How will we fund the huge per ticket losses? You seem to have glossed over that question?
In the meantime, we’ll have to make what we have work as well as it can. Wether all the roads should have been built, or not, it’s a moot point now, isn’t it?
They’re what’s here, and they’re all the majority of regular citizens has to get around on. That’s undeniable.
Regardless of any past mistakes, until there is something genuinely serious, something much more than a mere idea or a theory, I’m going to stay with what we can really do for the Average Citizen. You can’t get to work in the morning on a theory…sorry.
I didn’t say I liked any of this, just that day-to-day workabililty couldn’t be more important… and for the time being 90%+ of the population is using roads. Personally I don’t think we should have given up the street car routes 60 years ago… those would be very handy now. Wishing doesn’t make it so…
April 26, 2011 at 4:56 am
Your argument falls down a little bit at the end KJC when you hold transit up for funding itself as opposed to what? Roads? KJC, roads are the most subsidized, unable to pay their way, form of trnasportation ever conceived. The costs are endless from maintenance, initial building costs, surface water pollution effects, drainage pond dredging, heavy metal disposal, snowplowing, landscape maintenance and the list is much longer. Roads are absurdly expensive to maintain! Rail leaves a much smaller imprint and those companion effects on the environment and maintenance costs aren’t even close. You are right that transit requires a certain density. Boston is a great example with their coordinated “T” lines with bus service filling the gaps. Our metro area has sufficient density to build six or seven lines to the burbs with an efficient bus system spidering off of those main lines. KJC, the single bridge span over the St. Croix (HW 36 isn’t nearly a main HW) is projected to cost nearly the same as the entire Central Corridor project (the main artery of the cities) and will produce lasting costs in the form of storm water pollution, business relocation and of course will promote the type of sprawl and development that is the most expensive to build and maintain for cash strapped municipalities. KJC, you’re missing the complete perspective.
April 25, 2011 at 8:21 am
I’d like to totally agree, but can’t. Why? You need a certain population density to have mass transit genuinely work. This is why it is so common in Europe, where the major cities pre-date the automobile. If you don’t have sufficient density, there just isn’t enough ridership potential to make it economically workable. There are a few lines in our Metro area where density is likely sufficient… but it isn’t economically feasible to roll this out for the general population.
Most of suburbia will likely remain unworkable for mass transit. This harms it, as a pervasive “public good,” as it leaves way too much of the populace out… unlike social security, medicare, education and other parts of the social net that are highly inclusive.
We’ll have to be disciplined and stick to those few corridors where it’s viable. The subsidy per rider is already fairly large… believe me you don’t want to multiply this current approach times tens of thousands and see what your taxes would look like. Perhaps in Chicago and New York… places that have areas of higher densities because the had large parts that grew-up before the car… this can work more completely. But in Minnesota we mostly just lack the population density to make this a good plan. I don’t like that news any better than you do. While I am always willing to take a stand for the Common Good, indeed I think this “to promote the General Welfare” clasuse of the Constitution is overlooked way too often, this is one time it isn’t going to be “common” enough for us to go all-in.*
I am alarmed, however, by plans to sell-off our roads to private parties for tolls, THAT needs to be resisted at all-out. Those really are in common usage, that is to say used by a very high percentage of our population… and they should stay under public control. I see no long-term economy (for the common good) in doing this, just a one-time cash gain to jimmy the budget (only) once. Bad plan.
It’s 65 and sunny today, finally!
* One of the biggest problems with mass transit tends not to be getting funding to build it… there are federal dollars for a high percentage of that. What is the problem then? The subsidy to cover ongoing losses, since ticket prices don’t even come close to paying the real cost.. those are so large that you have trouble finding local government entities willing to commit their own budgets to cover those on-going and (permanent) losses. THAT is the nobody-wants-to-talk-about-it-too-much issue.
April 23, 2011 at 10:26 am
I couldn’t disagree more with those of you who believe transportation costs should be borne entirely by the users. This is a public good. How could it make a profit, without raising fares and fees and gas taxes to heights that destroy our economy?
Public roads and bridges have always been subsidized starting with the early military roads; even the huge highway expansion in 1956 was passed in part because of Eisenhower’s belief we needed good transportation to carry military vehicles.
Consider the consequences if we didn’t provide public transportation at a reasonable cost. Or allowed companies get into the business and try to derive a profit? Where would the competition come from? I think that just opens the door for exorbitant fees and fares and probable corruption. (If you think govt. would be equally corruptible, look at what’s happened to private businesses in the last few years. I haven’t seen anything comparable in govt. Nor could govt. bring down the entire economy as business has.)
Make public transportation even more affordable. Portland Or has one of the best systems I’ve ever seen. You can get on and off the trains (free) until you get out of the free zone, the fares are still minimal. This city believes in its own economy, prosperity, and fairness to its public.
We don’t.
I think if anything fares should be lowered for individuals riding public transportation. I don’t know enough about freight and other specific business uses, but I’m sure they are subsidized and I know such companies and rails pay user fees of some kinds.
April 22, 2011 at 7:32 am
I’m With Bryan here. Any funding that is tax-based for transportation only inhibits the ability of the “transportation system” to respond to changing environmental resources and local choice. We must work toward a removal of tax subsidies to all forms of transportation. Then perhaps the mass transit companies will stand a chance through competition.
January 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I don’t think the highway industry in Minnesota is claiming that roads pay for themselves (surprise, surprise). The same companies that build roads are working on the Central Corridor, the Union Depot, etc. It would be nice if your article recognized that buses (the vast majority of Minnesota’s transit system)drive on highways. Rather than fomenting the roads vs. transit argument, we need to work together to fight the disinvestment argument.
January 20, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I don’t think highways pay for themselves but, if we want good roads and infrastructure we get what we pay for. The gas tax captures, somewhat, the cost of using the roads. To more fully capture the cost of roads I suggest we base the annual cost of license tabs on the weight of the vehicle. Heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads so increase the license tabs on heavier cars and trucks.
January 20, 2011 at 11:17 am
Both are subsidized. Neither should be.
I take the bus every day downtown and it is cheap.
I drive on the highway and pay nothing directly.
Even if I never drove on the roads myself almost everything I buy came by highway so I am benefitting nominally there and am OK with the nominal gas in my lawn mower going to help pay for those highways.
With that said we do not need anymore highways or any more spending.
If people want bigger or better roads in their area, let them for a group together an d pay for it in cash instead of leveraging our taxes to force others to pay for their benefit without a choice.
January 20, 2011 at 10:36 am
What there is to be distinguished in all this is? The difficulty of effective transparency. What are the costs? It’s how you define that, and those trying to win arguments often frame the underlying assumptions about those to favor their position. (Without acknowledging they’re doing that, of course.)
I suspect we’d find that there are a wider array of hidden costs in highways vs. transit, for example. If you want to win the argument for highways? Just frame your position around construction costs, and mostly ignore or minimize all the other potential costs. We are unlikely to have a rational discussion on this topic (or any other one?) until there is, first, an agreement on what the actual scope of costs and benefits are that will be considered in the subsequent discussion. Once those assumptions are agreed upon, I think a rational transportation discussion would at least be possible.
I wish I could say that our current legislature was about to engage this way, as we face some difficult choices. Sadly, I see no sign of it. They seem more interested in ideologically-driven blunt force, under a front of “we’re just being practical.” It’s as if their assumptions (which have had no public examination) are to be self-deemed “correct.” With that “in hand,” of course they can self-justify whatever position they want to. As to whether the public is served in this flawed process? That would appear to be far from assured. I wish I had better news.
Why would I say that? I’m going to use a current example from our nation’s capital. In the House yesterday they voted (without meeting their own rules for funding requirements I might add) to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. They passed it, the Senate isn’t taking it up. So? They say? We’ll continue “looking for ways for the free market to lower health care costs and expand coverage.” What? This is a complete denial of the obvious facts: that it’s the free market that has resulted in these escalating costs and leaving about 50 million people without coverage. It’s because of this failure that the government has had to act!
If there approach is possible? Let’s try their plan out: I’m not enjoying our winter. So? I suppose I’ll go out to my backyard and look for a palm tree today. Do you think I will find a solution to our cold winter? I think you would say I was crazy, that there was no likelihood of my plan succeeding, that it was some kind of idiocy. Is their “seach” for solutions in the very place that has created our problem any less crazy than this example? The pretense of pretending to do something, while trying to favor the status quo.
Given that this is the very same party that has taken over our Minnesota legislature, that is why I am not optimistic. Despite their exhortations about being practical, they’re failing one of the most basic logic tests of all: “do what you always did, get what you always got.” We’ve spent 30 years trying tax cuts, and other forms of “scarcity mentality,” and it hasn’t produced prosperity for the average citizen in our great country. The evidence would strongly suggest otherwise. Yet? They are unswayed… let’s try more of that, and what’s more we’re “justified”... yes, that is why I am not my usual optimistic self. Thanks for listening.
January 20, 2011 at 10:03 am
Another often overlooked financial burden of highway construction is the very high cost of maintenance. Not only do they require constant road bed and surface work, they need a very large supportive and maintenance regime to make them passable durring Minnesota winters. Our climate is harsh on roads and, as you stated, creates its very own set of pollution factors in the form of salts and heavy metals. Don’t forget the large areas of landscaping surrounding them that also need care and maintenance in the summer as well. No doubgt about it, highways are expensive to build, need large purchases of land to create, are always demanding more maintenance than we can now afford (Minnesota highway bridge maintenance now in crisis was ignored by the Pawlenty adminstration in an ideological attempt to shrink MNDOT’s budget and hide the true cost of road building) and promote the most expensive kind of urban growth. If you want to take this process to the extreme visit Colorado Springs where a huge expanse of multilane highways link far flung neighborhoods in a bizarre growth pattern promoting long car trips. Now, due to conservative city leadership, the municipality is unable to come up with the money needed to maintain and finish those roads and no prudent, cost effective alternatives exist to reduce that financial burden.
January 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Great article. And I would add to your quote of me that the incentives for local officials encourage more and more highway spending w/o consideration of return.
To give a recent and ongoing example, when we build the city of Rogers an overpass, it costs them relatively little but provides them a tremendous platform for local growth. The fact that the local growth fails to generate anything near a return on this investment is immaterial - from the local balance sheet, zero cost + some growth = huge benefit.
These costs all need to be made more real for the user. That is the only way market forces will successfully determine our land use pattern.
And for the record, I am a conservative Republican and believe you are right on the mark here with your analysis.
January 18, 2011 at 4:41 pm
If there’s plenty of subsidy from the general pool of taxes then you should have no problem with eliminating or reducing the gas tax and motor vehicle fees. Trying to equate highway funding with mass transit funding is just silly.
In theory we could do away with the gas taxes and let the car makers and oil companies build and maintain the roads, but there certainly is a public good to be had from being able to defend our country better or make emergency response faster with quick transportation on the roads.
DanC says:
April 28, 2011 at 9:19 am
We need infrastruture subsidization no more than health care for all. You’re right that there are many areas where Government needs to subsidize our society, if we are to be productive and grow. Health care is one of them, along with roads. Unfortunately, conservative seem to use all the resources, but don’t want to pay for them. Or, more specifically, they want the Government ot only pay for the infrastructure they approve of or benefit from. And o heck with everyone else.