6 ms·

How do you feel about roads? Most of them are 100% subsidized, capital and operations alike.

niftich 10y ago
In an effort to avoid politics as much as I can, roads tend to escape scrutiny about government subsidies because they are a baseline, bring-your-own-vehicle requirement, which doesn't smell nearly as 'subsidized' to people who then have to provide their own cars to use them. In the 'equity' vs 'equality' debate, roads are 'equality': everyone is given the same road to succeed, but of course not everyone has a vehicle to make use of it properly. But this debate pops up in areas when tolls, euphemistic "usage fees", or increases in fuel taxes are proposed to pay for new roads.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Yes, but the road itself always loses 100% of the money, except for toll roads. It is considered to be an external benefit to the economy that people can move around, even if they have to bring their own vehicles. Therefore it is true in the case of roads that we collectively believe subsidies lead to a better economy. It is not nonsense to extend that belief to railroads.
  - niftich 10y ago
    Perhaps it can be generalized as 'people tend to support only things that are directly and immediately beneficial to their current life circumstances, and demonstrably non-detrimental to their real or perceived future lifestyle prospects'.
  - barney54 10y ago
    Gas taxes are the user fees people pay to use the roads. In no sense is it true that roads always loose 100% of money.
    - mapt 10y ago
      http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fee...
    - millamox 10y ago
      In New York, less than half of the cost of roads is borne by drivers via the gas tax. In California, drivers pay less than a quarter of the cost. There are no states in the US where gas taxes cover more than 60% of the cost of roads. This is another form of racism/classism. White people have no problem paying for white people transport (cars!). They object to "city" transport which often carries poor and other-colored people.
      - coredog64 10y ago
        If only there was a way to charge for the privilege of driving on the road. Maybe we could stamp out steel plates to affix to vehicles. Those plates could signify that the owner has paid an annual fee for using the road. As I understand it, cars can be fairly expensive. Maybe some kind of tax on the sale of each one could bring in a few bucks.
      - pyridine 10y ago
        So it's racist to drive now?
        ocb 10y ago
        The comment you're replying to did say "classist" as well. I'm sure you're aware of the US's unequal spread of wealth among different racial groups in its population... You are not personally being called racist. People in the US are generally completely unaware of how subsidized their drive-everywhere, segregated-zoning lifestyles are. Land use choices have very real effects and in the vast majority of the US, you HAVE to own a car or you are completely handicapped in terms of access to jobs and services. Public transit infrastructure proposals in the US are routinely downscaled/defeated because a lot of people think that anything other than building roads = money pit subsidies for the dumb uneducated poor people who live in the city. If you don't agree with the egalitarian side of the argument for making cars less necessary to living in America, you should at least be able to see the hypocrisy of the general attitude towards transit given the fact that gas taxes and other car-related usage fees that fund roads don't come anywhere near making the road network "pay for itself". I suspect that as Millennials age and gain political power, given their left-leaning politics and greater preference for urban living, this situation will change to look more like Canada does now, which is similarly car-dependent but also generally has cities with more reasonable public transit options.
graycat 10y ago
My understanding is that the roads are, were, are supposed to be, used to be, might be, etc. paid for in part or in total by gasoline taxes, maybe called the Highway Trust Fund (maybe at times dipped into for various other purposes) which seems fair enough. Also for the 100%, there are some toll roads and bridges where the users pay for use of the roads which looks like users paying and not a subsidy. There's likely another issue, a law about 100 years old passed in part to slow down US West water resource projects to "make the desert bloom" -- yup, can do that, but the question was, do the benefits exceed the costs? So, the law established that a Federally funded project needs to pass cost-benefit analysis. So, add up all the costs and all the benefits "to whomsoever they accrue", and then to go ahead with the project the benefits have to be higher than the costs. Well, maybe passenger rail can pass cost-benefit analysis in some cases and, there, justify a subsidy, but the one case I heard about was in a lecture on the Baltimore Subway. It was all built and ready to go. So, for the cost-benefit analysis, just call the construction cost $0.00 -- seems generous enough! Then have to count the operational costs and consider the ticket revenue. Well, the ticket revenue from the estimates of what people were willing to pay and the number of such people still didn't cover even the operational costs. The lecture ended with the optimal solution -- brick up the openings and walk away. That seemed a bit extreme: Instead why not take out the tracks and use the rest as underground parking? Warehousing?
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Your understanding is a bit deficient then because the gas tax revenues do not even begin to cover road building and maintenance. In California for example the transportation budget is $17 billion per year, $14 billion of which is for roads, but the fuel tax revenue is only $6 billion and the vehicle license and registration fees are $3.2 billion. The remainder is provided from general revenues, that is to say it constitutes a subsidy. At the federal level, Congress has been transferring money from general funds into the Highway Trust Fund every year since 2001, because the fuel tax has gone down in real terms every year since 1993. Tolls are nice but only account for 5% of road funds in the US. To use the pejorative applied against transit projects, the "fare recovery ratio" for roads ranks below literally every transit agency in the nation. In short, roads are highly subsidized from general revenues.
barney54 10y ago
You can argue roads are subsidized, but no where near 100% subsidized. Federal and state gas taxes are user fees for road use.
gozur88 10y ago
100%? Only if you ignore fuel taxes.

In an effort to avoid politics as much as I can, roads tend to escape scrutiny about government subsidies because they are a baseline, bring-your-own-vehicle requirement, which doesn't smell nearly as 'subsidized' to people who then have to provide their own cars to use them. In the 'equity' vs 'equality' debate, roads are 'equality': everyone is given the same road to succeed, but of course not everyone has a vehicle to make use of it properly. But this debate pops up in areas when tolls, euphemistic "usage fees", or increases in fuel taxes are proposed to pay for new roads.

honkhonkpants 10y ago
Yes, but the road itself always loses 100% of the money, except for toll roads. It is considered to be an external benefit to the economy that people can move around, even if they have to bring their own vehicles. Therefore it is true in the case of roads that we collectively believe subsidies lead to a better economy. It is not nonsense to extend that belief to railroads.
- niftich 10y ago
  Perhaps it can be generalized as 'people tend to support only things that are directly and immediately beneficial to their current life circumstances, and demonstrably non-detrimental to their real or perceived future lifestyle prospects'.
- barney54 10y ago
  Gas taxes are the user fees people pay to use the roads. In no sense is it true that roads always loose 100% of money.
  - mapt 10y ago
    http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fee...
  - millamox 10y ago
    In New York, less than half of the cost of roads is borne by drivers via the gas tax. In California, drivers pay less than a quarter of the cost. There are no states in the US where gas taxes cover more than 60% of the cost of roads. This is another form of racism/classism. White people have no problem paying for white people transport (cars!). They object to "city" transport which often carries poor and other-colored people.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      If only there was a way to charge for the privilege of driving on the road. Maybe we could stamp out steel plates to affix to vehicles. Those plates could signify that the owner has paid an annual fee for using the road. As I understand it, cars can be fairly expensive. Maybe some kind of tax on the sale of each one could bring in a few bucks.
    - pyridine 10y ago
      So it's racist to drive now?
      - ocb 10y ago
        The comment you're replying to did say "classist" as well. I'm sure you're aware of the US's unequal spread of wealth among different racial groups in its population... You are not personally being called racist. People in the US are generally completely unaware of how subsidized their drive-everywhere, segregated-zoning lifestyles are. Land use choices have very real effects and in the vast majority of the US, you HAVE to own a car or you are completely handicapped in terms of access to jobs and services. Public transit infrastructure proposals in the US are routinely downscaled/defeated because a lot of people think that anything other than building roads = money pit subsidies for the dumb uneducated poor people who live in the city. If you don't agree with the egalitarian side of the argument for making cars less necessary to living in America, you should at least be able to see the hypocrisy of the general attitude towards transit given the fact that gas taxes and other car-related usage fees that fund roads don't come anywhere near making the road network "pay for itself". I suspect that as Millennials age and gain political power, given their left-leaning politics and greater preference for urban living, this situation will change to look more like Canada does now, which is similarly car-dependent but also generally has cities with more reasonable public transit options.

graycat 10y ago

My understanding is that the roads are, were, are supposed to be, used to be, might be, etc. paid for in part or in total by gasoline taxes, maybe called the Highway Trust Fund (maybe at times dipped into for various other purposes) which seems fair enough. Also for the 100%, there are some toll roads and bridges where the users pay for use of the roads which looks like users paying and not a subsidy. There's likely another issue, a law about 100 years old passed in part to slow down US West water resource projects to "make the desert bloom" -- yup, can do that, but the question was, do the benefits exceed the costs? So, the law established that a Federally funded project needs to pass cost-benefit analysis. So, add up all the costs and all the benefits "to whomsoever they accrue", and then to go ahead with the project the benefits have to be higher than the costs. Well, maybe passenger rail can pass cost-benefit analysis in some cases and, there, justify a subsidy, but the one case I heard about was in a lecture on the Baltimore Subway. It was all built and ready to go. So, for the cost-benefit analysis, just call the construction cost $0.00 -- seems generous enough! Then have to count the operational costs and consider the ticket revenue. Well, the ticket revenue from the estimates of what people were willing to pay and the number of such people still didn't cover even the operational costs. The lecture ended with the optimal solution -- brick up the openings and walk away. That seemed a bit extreme: Instead why not take out the tracks and use the rest as underground parking? Warehousing?

honkhonkpants 10y ago
Your understanding is a bit deficient then because the gas tax revenues do not even begin to cover road building and maintenance. In California for example the transportation budget is $17 billion per year, $14 billion of which is for roads, but the fuel tax revenue is only $6 billion and the vehicle license and registration fees are $3.2 billion. The remainder is provided from general revenues, that is to say it constitutes a subsidy. At the federal level, Congress has been transferring money from general funds into the Highway Trust Fund every year since 2001, because the fuel tax has gone down in real terms every year since 1993. Tolls are nice but only account for 5% of road funds in the US. To use the pejorative applied against transit projects, the "fare recovery ratio" for roads ranks below literally every transit agency in the nation. In short, roads are highly subsidized from general revenues.

barney54 10y ago

You can argue roads are subsidized, but no where near 100% subsidized. Federal and state gas taxes are user fees for road use.

gozur88 10y ago

100%? Only if you ignore fuel taxes.