4 ms·

Drivers don't pay the full cost of maintaining the roads, so if it's a question of which system we should subsidize, I'd rather subsidize mass transit. It has l

Drivers don't pay the full cost of maintaining the roads, so if it's a question of which system we should subsidize, I'd rather subsidize mass transit. It has less environmental impact and takes up less space. If it's cheaper too, that'd be great.

stevenmays 9y ago
Yes, they do. Highways are largely maintained through the gas tax.
- grardb 9y ago
  Nope. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-builders-roads-don%E2%80%99t-pay-for-themselves/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-build...
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    Numbers like that are misleading. Roads that go through rural areas don't pay for themselves because they have little traffic. But those are also not the areas where anybody is talking about adding lanes to the roads. And in the areas with actual congestion, tax on the gas burned driving on those roads more than pays for them.
    - grardb 9y ago
      If we're playing this game, we could go a step further than that and say that roads with little traffic need little maintenance. Roads with more driving will need to maintained on a more regular basis. If someone has data/knowledge that this isn't true, though, please let me know (genuinely, as I can't find any information about this). Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion[1]. Not sure if you were saying that. Even if we did "profit" from building more lanes/roads, it's only because we're externalizing other costs (environmental damage, the cost of space/real estate, etc.). I don't think this is a good strategy. [1] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > If we're playing this game, we could go a step further than that and say that roads with little traffic need little maintenance. The majority of road maintenance costs are caused by the elements rather than cars. > Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion They found that if you add road capacity, people use it. But nobody (except China) spends the money to add road capacity unless they expect it to be used. They just hand wave that away. It's obviously true that if you add roads people will drive more, but the idea that it's physically impossible to build enough road capacity is ridiculous. As if you could build a twelve lane superhighway at the South Pole and cars would appear out of nowhere to fill it with traffic congestion.
- emperorcezar 9y ago
  False "Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers." http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads
alwaysdoit 9y ago
Not to mention the value of the land that is set aside for roads and parking. How much property tax is the city forgoing by dedicating that land to cars rather than homes or offices? How much cheaper would our costs of living be? Also, a major reason costs of construction and maintenance on public transportation are so high is that they have to do it in a way that minimizes the disruption to car traffic. Yes roads are cheaper to build than subways, but if they could shut down a whole street and build light rail at surface grade it would be a lot cheaper (which is why streetcars and cablecars were ubiquitous a century ago). Or if they could shut down 4th street for a year, the Central Subway would be done already.

stevenmays 9y ago

Yes, they do. Highways are largely maintained through the gas tax.

grardb 9y ago
Nope. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-builders-roads-don%E2%80%99t-pay-for-themselves/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-build...
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  Numbers like that are misleading. Roads that go through rural areas don't pay for themselves because they have little traffic. But those are also not the areas where anybody is talking about adding lanes to the roads. And in the areas with actual congestion, tax on the gas burned driving on those roads more than pays for them.
  - grardb 9y ago
    If we're playing this game, we could go a step further than that and say that roads with little traffic need little maintenance. Roads with more driving will need to maintained on a more regular basis. If someone has data/knowledge that this isn't true, though, please let me know (genuinely, as I can't find any information about this). Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion[1]. Not sure if you were saying that. Even if we did "profit" from building more lanes/roads, it's only because we're externalizing other costs (environmental damage, the cost of space/real estate, etc.). I don't think this is a good strategy. [1] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > If we're playing this game, we could go a step further than that and say that roads with little traffic need little maintenance. The majority of road maintenance costs are caused by the elements rather than cars. > Also, for the record, adding lanes doesn't reduce traffic congestion They found that if you add road capacity, people use it. But nobody (except China) spends the money to add road capacity unless they expect it to be used. They just hand wave that away. It's obviously true that if you add roads people will drive more, but the idea that it's physically impossible to build enough road capacity is ridiculous. As if you could build a twelve lane superhighway at the South Pole and cars would appear out of nowhere to fill it with traffic congestion.
emperorcezar 9y ago
False "Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers." http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads

alwaysdoit 9y ago

Not to mention the value of the land that is set aside for roads and parking. How much property tax is the city forgoing by dedicating that land to cars rather than homes or offices? How much cheaper would our costs of living be? Also, a major reason costs of construction and maintenance on public transportation are so high is that they have to do it in a way that minimizes the disruption to car traffic. Yes roads are cheaper to build than subways, but if they could shut down a whole street and build light rail at surface grade it would be a lot cheaper (which is why streetcars and cablecars were ubiquitous a century ago). Or if they could shut down 4th street for a year, the Central Subway would be done already.