4 ms·

> Cars are what make roads fundamentally useful. Roads predate cars by more than order of magnitude so that clearly is not true. The issue with single occupan

by shkkmo 8y ago

> Cars are what make roads fundamentally useful. Roads predate cars by more than order of magnitude so that clearly is not true. The issue with single occupancy cars is clearly different in rural vs urban settings and depends heavily on population density. Both of the following are true: Non-car owners in high density areas are subsidizing car owners in those areas. The lack of a need to pay for usage of those roads increases the cost of the transportation infrastructure (via increasing the attractiveness of car ownership and usage). Dwellers in high density areas are subsidizing dwellers in low density areas. The lack of a need to pay for usage increases the attractiveness of dwelling in low density areas. Nobody is suggesting that forcibly moving everyone to cities or taking away their cars is needed. However, perhaps people should pay the full costs of those choices in the interests of encouraging efficiency.

fromthestart 8y ago
>Non-car owners in high density areas are subsidizing car owners in those areas. Strongly disagree. First off, car ownership is typically expensive in dense areas, and those with enough income to own vehicles are likely paying more in taxes toward these subsidies. Further, many, if not most subsidies for roads come from costs directly associated with ownership, like registration taxes, gas taxes, and toll fees. Now it may be true that these fees are not enough to cover the full cost of roads in the US[1], but if you consider that both road users and non users derive additional benefits from roads beyond direct use (in the form of cheaper transportation of goods, emergency services, public transportation), and that users pay an additional share of taxes that non users don't, then this subsidy by non users is probably quite small. In any case according to [1] the overall tax burden, not considering offsets by general benefits of roads for non users, is only $597 per household. 1.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%2520Pays%2520for%2520Roads%2520vUS.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGy_yk64ziAhUQS60KHV5KAsQQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3ecu5h0MHua3I_XtWqKS8b&cshid=1557350008526 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > First off, car ownership is typically expensive in dense areas, and those with enough income to own vehicles are likely paying more in taxes toward these subsidies. I'll grant there is likely a correlation between the amount of taxes paid and car ownership. However, isolating segments based on income means that within each segment, the car owners are being subsidized by the non-car owners. > Further, many, if not most subsidies for roads come from costs directly associated with ownership, like registration taxes, gas taxes, and toll fees. I don't think the numbers support you here, it varies significantly by state (from 5% to 80% with a mean around 50%) [2] 2. https://taxfoundation.org/road-spending-state-funded-user-taxes-and-fees-including-federal-gas-tax-revenues https://taxfoundation.org/road-spending-state-funded-user-ta... > In any case according to [1] the overall tax burden, not considering offsets by general benefits of roads for non users, is only $597 per household. That is just the construction and maintenance cost, that same document gives the following number: "Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving." If you look at my source's prior article (which didn't include federal gas taxes) the average amount paid is closer to 30%. So taken together (which may mix incompatible data), a rough estimate of the subsidy is an average of ~7-800 per household which I would not call "quite small". I suspect this estimate is somewhat low based on my understanding of how those two sources calculate costs.
  - fwip 8y ago
    In addition, many cities require new construction (both residential and commercial) to include a certain amount of parking. While this makes some amount of sense, it also increases the cost , which is subsidized by everyone regardless of car ownership.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    > Nationwide in 2010, state and local governments raised $37 billion in motor fuel taxes and $12 billion in tolls and non-fuel taxes, but spent $155 billion on highways.[3] In other words, highway user taxes and fees made up just 32 percent of state and local expenses on roads. The rest was financed out of general revenues, including federal aid. This did not include $28 billion from the Federal gas tax, so $49 billion becomes $77 billion. Looking into the Census data, it also inexplicably doesn’t include $21 billion of “Motor vehicle license” revenue. So we’re up to $98 billion. It also does not appear to include motor vehicle sales taxes, nor motor vehicle property taxes. I can’t find a figure for property tax, but I did find a report that in 2013 sales taxes for new and used vehicles totaled $38.9 billion. We are now approaching 100%... An AutoAlliance report calculates in 2013 the auto sector paid $110 billion in State taxes and $98 billion in Federal taxes. [1] Even this does not include vehicle property taxes, as the amount is not readibly calculable due to the sheer number of entries that collect this kind of tax. By comparison, the report linked from your [2] link did include this; > In 2010, state and local governments spent $60 billion on mass transit, ... , in turn raising $13 billion in mass transit fares, ... Seems like it’s mass transit that’s the one which is heavily subsidized. [1] - https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Assessment-of-Tax-Revenue-Generated-by-the-Automotive-Sector-for-the-Year-2013.pdf https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Assessme...
fromthestart 8y ago
>Roads predate cars by more than order of magnitude so that clearly is not true. There are orders of magnitude more utility derived from using roads with modern vehicles which travel 6+ times faster than horses or humans on foot, such that using roads without cars would be practically useless in comparison.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  I would agree that the majority if the value of roads currently derives from the use of them with modern vehicles. If somehow we immediately ran out of gasoline to power those vehicles, our economy would suffer a major loss of efficiency. However, the roads themselves would still be fundamentally and practically useful: They are public right-of-ways that allow foot, bicycle and other traffic access to private property. They are established routes along which travel is easier, services are available and landmarks are available for easy navigation. In fact, those fundamental uses of roads are sometimes improved by banning cars from them in some areas/times: https://matadornetwork.com/read/cities-banning-cars-city-centers/ https://matadornetwork.com/read/cities-banning-cars-city-cen...
zaroth 8y ago
Whether you personally own a car or not is only one variable, and perhaps not even the dominant variable, in the equation of the personal or household utility of public roads. Everyone pays for the roads, and whether you have a car or not, you benefit tremendously from having them. Whether it is trucks stocking shelves at your local stores and grocer, vans delivering your Amazon packages, Lyfts bringing you to a customer meeting, or even indirectly, cars bringing people you’ll never meet—and hence economic activity—into your city, or into your high rise. Not having a car is a personal luxury enabled by the massive infrastructure that is built around you. That infrastructure is made possible by roads. Arguably people who don’t have cars are the ones who aren’t paying their fair share.

by shkkmo 8y ago

fromthestart 8y ago

>Non-car owners in high density areas are subsidizing car owners in those areas. Strongly disagree. First off, car ownership is typically expensive in dense areas, and those with enough income to own vehicles are likely paying more in taxes toward these subsidies. Further, many, if not most subsidies for roads come from costs directly associated with ownership, like registration taxes, gas taxes, and toll fees. Now it may be true that these fees are not enough to cover the full cost of roads in the US[1], but if you consider that both road users and non users derive additional benefits from roads beyond direct use (in the form of cheaper transportation of goods, emergency services, public transportation), and that users pay an additional share of taxes that non users don't, then this subsidy by non users is probably quite small. In any case according to [1] the overall tax burden, not considering offsets by general benefits of roads for non users, is only $597 per household. 1.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%2520Pays%2520for%2520Roads%2520vUS.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGy_yk64ziAhUQS60KHV5KAsQQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3ecu5h0MHua3I_XtWqKS8b&cshid=1557350008526 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

shkkmo 8y ago
> First off, car ownership is typically expensive in dense areas, and those with enough income to own vehicles are likely paying more in taxes toward these subsidies. I'll grant there is likely a correlation between the amount of taxes paid and car ownership. However, isolating segments based on income means that within each segment, the car owners are being subsidized by the non-car owners. > Further, many, if not most subsidies for roads come from costs directly associated with ownership, like registration taxes, gas taxes, and toll fees. I don't think the numbers support you here, it varies significantly by state (from 5% to 80% with a mean around 50%) [2] 2. https://taxfoundation.org/road-spending-state-funded-user-taxes-and-fees-including-federal-gas-tax-revenues https://taxfoundation.org/road-spending-state-funded-user-ta... > In any case according to [1] the overall tax burden, not considering offsets by general benefits of roads for non users, is only $597 per household. That is just the construction and maintenance cost, that same document gives the following number: "Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving." If you look at my source's prior article (which didn't include federal gas taxes) the average amount paid is closer to 30%. So taken together (which may mix incompatible data), a rough estimate of the subsidy is an average of ~7-800 per household which I would not call "quite small". I suspect this estimate is somewhat low based on my understanding of how those two sources calculate costs.
- fwip 8y ago
  In addition, many cities require new construction (both residential and commercial) to include a certain amount of parking. While this makes some amount of sense, it also increases the cost , which is subsidized by everyone regardless of car ownership.
- zaroth 8y ago
  > Nationwide in 2010, state and local governments raised $37 billion in motor fuel taxes and $12 billion in tolls and non-fuel taxes, but spent $155 billion on highways.[3] In other words, highway user taxes and fees made up just 32 percent of state and local expenses on roads. The rest was financed out of general revenues, including federal aid. This did not include $28 billion from the Federal gas tax, so $49 billion becomes $77 billion. Looking into the Census data, it also inexplicably doesn’t include $21 billion of “Motor vehicle license” revenue. So we’re up to $98 billion. It also does not appear to include motor vehicle sales taxes, nor motor vehicle property taxes. I can’t find a figure for property tax, but I did find a report that in 2013 sales taxes for new and used vehicles totaled $38.9 billion. We are now approaching 100%... An AutoAlliance report calculates in 2013 the auto sector paid $110 billion in State taxes and $98 billion in Federal taxes. [1] Even this does not include vehicle property taxes, as the amount is not readibly calculable due to the sheer number of entries that collect this kind of tax. By comparison, the report linked from your [2] link did include this; > In 2010, state and local governments spent $60 billion on mass transit, ... , in turn raising $13 billion in mass transit fares, ... Seems like it’s mass transit that’s the one which is heavily subsidized. [1] - https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Assessment-of-Tax-Revenue-Generated-by-the-Automotive-Sector-for-the-Year-2013.pdf https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Assessme...

fromthestart 8y ago

>Roads predate cars by more than order of magnitude so that clearly is not true. There are orders of magnitude more utility derived from using roads with modern vehicles which travel 6+ times faster than horses or humans on foot, such that using roads without cars would be practically useless in comparison.

shkkmo 8y ago
I would agree that the majority if the value of roads currently derives from the use of them with modern vehicles. If somehow we immediately ran out of gasoline to power those vehicles, our economy would suffer a major loss of efficiency. However, the roads themselves would still be fundamentally and practically useful: They are public right-of-ways that allow foot, bicycle and other traffic access to private property. They are established routes along which travel is easier, services are available and landmarks are available for easy navigation. In fact, those fundamental uses of roads are sometimes improved by banning cars from them in some areas/times: https://matadornetwork.com/read/cities-banning-cars-city-centers/ https://matadornetwork.com/read/cities-banning-cars-city-cen...

zaroth 8y ago

Whether you personally own a car or not is only one variable, and perhaps not even the dominant variable, in the equation of the personal or household utility of public roads. Everyone pays for the roads, and whether you have a car or not, you benefit tremendously from having them. Whether it is trucks stocking shelves at your local stores and grocer, vans delivering your Amazon packages, Lyfts bringing you to a customer meeting, or even indirectly, cars bringing people you’ll never meet—and hence economic activity—into your city, or into your high rise. Not having a car is a personal luxury enabled by the massive infrastructure that is built around you. That infrastructure is made possible by roads. Arguably people who don’t have cars are the ones who aren’t paying their fair share.