6 ms·

Fuel taxes cover less than a third of road costs in the US. Gas taxes are really unpopular and generally have been allowed to dwindle away by inflation.

by jws 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 7y ago
Cars pay their own way (and then some). But it’s not merely through fuel taxes. It also includes sales taxes, excise taxes, registration fees, and tolls. From yesterday; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21166297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21166297
- namdnay 7y ago
  That’s only true if you assign a very low cost to the local health and global climate impact of cars
  - zaroth 7y ago
    "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" The fact that tax revenue from cars & trucks pay for the cost of their infrastructure is true regardless. IF you want to analyze externalities, please by all means, take a tally of all positive and negative and show me the balance.
- gracenotes 7y ago
  I can't find that info about funding sources in the urban.org article, or what "sales tax" is generated from specifically. The article does say that HTF is not fully self-funded. If something comes from general revenues/tax, that means that all taxpayers are paying for it, whether or not they use a car. If this is in fact the case, I don't think it's a bad thing. The problem in that case comes from double standards, where the ground-level understanding of how society operates includes costs incurred by individuals/businesses which effectively disappear into a vacuum rather than being directly paid/passed onto customers, yet is used as evidence of the completely natural and inherent utility of cars over alternatives. For a different doc more directly about who pays for roads, I've found this one useful. Made by a so-so thinktank, but seems well-sourced and rigorous. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I don't know that I'd call it a double standard though- a far greater percentage of the population benefits from road transport than subway. Unless it's handheld and it fits in a bag, goods and services are almost exclusively delivered by road vehicle. And even if a messenger is using the subway to deliver a package, it most likely was on a truck at some point before that.
    - gracenotes 7y ago
      I think we both agree that cars have some significant utility to them, although having utility doesn't mean that any amount of cost is acceptable. This is my problem with "cars pay for themselves, therefore other forms of transit should pay for themselves", which I have seen evidence against (see linked pdf) and nothing conclusively for. The meaningful discussion to have is what we want to support as a society, like your argument. Trucks on last mile delivery are invaluable for some deliveries, as you mention, but then... why else does any other vehicle need to use most streets? Is it reasonable for someone who orders a truck to pay 33% of the cost of that truck on the road? What about 0%, or 100%? Which is best? In cases where alternatives to trucks or cars are less costly overall in some situation, or additional efficiency can be achieved with batching, how much of that is ignored because of these accidentally created incentives? Not even mentioning the indirect cost to communities (walkability, clean air, autonomy of disabled people). I don't have the answers, but I think these are good questions to be asking. For the specifics of policies, we need to base that on data ofc.
      - Shivetya 7y ago
        Well one thing for sure, internet warriors are always willing to give up cars or have others give them up but the simple reality is that cars and access to them is a requirement for many even in the city environment. simply put, living in town is not financially or socially viable for many and the freedom afforded by auto ownership is not giving the value is vastly underestimated by those who would restrict their use by others. as with most lifestyle conversations it is far easier to score internet points with altruistic comments let alone being part of the clique. about as useful as hashtag diplomacy
- megablast 7y ago
  This is ridiculous. And doesn’t even cover the costs due to 40,000 deaths every year, and over 2million disabled and injured every single year.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I strongly disagree. The question was do cars and trucks cover the cost of infrastructure. The answer is that they clearly do. When I see someone claim otherwise, I'll just pipe in with the truth. If you want to talk about externalities, you have to have a clear-eyed analysis of both positive and negative externalities. It's a very difficult analysis, because they both total in the trillions of dollars. I'd welcome a well researched scientific paper on the subject.
- vkou 7y ago
  Cars do not pay their own way. Tabs, gas taxes, and tickets do not cover even a third of spending on road construction, maintenance, and highway patrol... And that's ignoring the high cost of 'free' parking. But since they are very visible, very direct taxes (And in addition to them, you have to pay for gasoline itself, insurance, parking, etc), drivers who have not done the math mistakenly believe that they aren't being subsidized.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I just did the math, and showed my work. Cars and trucks pay hundreds of billions in taxes annually, which more than covers the cost of creating and maintaining the infrastructure.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Your math: 1. Ignored the amortized cost of all that roadway construction. You can't just look at maintenance costs. 2. Ignored the state and federal funding that went into it. 3. Ignored the cost of 'free' parking. 4. Ignored the cost of highway and parking enforcement (If you have even one officer doing it full-time, the fines don't pay for it.) 5. Is quite atypical.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        1. When Eisenhower founded the national highway system, roads were built to provide for the common defense, and to provide the economic foundation upon which practically our entire economy is based (see trucking figures I quote above). At a cost of $500 billion (that's inflation adjusted) [1] I believe it was the single greatest investment ever made in human history in - terms of total dollar return on investment. 2. State & Federal funding of highways currently totals approximately $175 billion per year. I think inflation adjusted that has been fairly steady of the last half century. It's one of the few things where government spending has actually remained constant. [2] Income from fuel taxes has been reducing over the last decade, while income from sales & excise tax has been increasing. It's reasonable to project that for the last several decades that infrastructure costs have been more than covered by vehicular income, and will continue to be covered for the forseeable future. Setting policy for today and tomorrow should be based on the facts of today and tomorrow. It would be claiming more than I need, to state that vehicular direct revenue has always exceeded direct expenses, when we can at least clearly state this was true for the last decade, and the next. Economically speaking, it would be extremely costly to reduce the utilization rates for infrastructure we have already paid for, for example, in terms of infrastructure cost per passenger-mile. One aspect which will eventually need reform is gas taxes will continue to drop with the spread of EVs, so a new form of usage-based billing will need to be developed -- hopefully one that doesn't involve a national tracking system, but I digress. It's fortunate that roads are so profitable that we haven't needed to raise the Federal fuel tax rate in over a decade, and have ample time to develop a solution. 3. The cost of 'free parking' is a relative rounding error in the $175 billion/yr we're talking about. Don't confuse the theoretical economic value of selling parking, or the potential value of re-purposing the space, with what it cost to build it. There may be a subsidy here, even possibly a large one, but that's not based on the cost of building the spot, but more the perceived theoretical value in renting it. Again, we've gotten into externalties and strayed away from the basic cost analysis. In reality, most parking costs are paid for by the parking consumer in one way or another. For example, at the mall, while you might not pay a fee to park, the store's rent includes the cost of building and maintaining the parking, and the prices of the goods at that store cover that rent. At your place of employment, you might not pay to park out back, but rest assured that the profit margin of the business includes the rent on the building, leaving less room in the P&L for salary. Again, whether the parking "benefit" is taxed as income to the employee is a different discussion as to whether roads pay for themselves. 4. You're getting into externalities here, without considering the positive ones. Police use the roads to prevent and respond to crime, which includes vehicular crime. Don't underestimate how much money is collected by governments through fines, fees, and forfeitures. In D.C. it works out to over $200 per person. Yes, it turns out, highways are overall very lucrative for the police. [3] 5. Thank you! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System [2] - https://edit.urban.org/sites/default/files/hr_4.png https://edit.urban.org/sites/default/files/hr_4.png [3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/10/26/police-collected-fines-fees-and-forfeitures-how-does-your-city-rank/#71d9a4172520 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/10/26/police-c...
beerandt 7y ago
Maybe true, although I haven't found that number (1/3) anywhere. But 20-30% of fuel taxes already go to non-roadway transit spending. Some states only spend ~20% of fuel taxes on roads. And a dozen or so States have increased fuel taxes in the last 5 years, so maybe the trend is starting to reverse.

Fuel taxes cover less than a third of road costs in the US. Gas taxes are really unpopular and generally have been allowed to dwindle away by inflation.

by jws 7y ago

Fuel taxes cover less than a third of road costs in the US. Gas taxes are really unpopular and generally have been allowed to dwindle away by inflation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 7y ago

Cars pay their own way (and then some). But it’s not merely through fuel taxes. It also includes sales taxes, excise taxes, registration fees, and tolls. From yesterday; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21166297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21166297

namdnay 7y ago
That’s only true if you assign a very low cost to the local health and global climate impact of cars
- zaroth 7y ago
  "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" The fact that tax revenue from cars & trucks pay for the cost of their infrastructure is true regardless. IF you want to analyze externalities, please by all means, take a tally of all positive and negative and show me the balance.
gracenotes 7y ago
I can't find that info about funding sources in the urban.org article, or what "sales tax" is generated from specifically. The article does say that HTF is not fully self-funded. If something comes from general revenues/tax, that means that all taxpayers are paying for it, whether or not they use a car. If this is in fact the case, I don't think it's a bad thing. The problem in that case comes from double standards, where the ground-level understanding of how society operates includes costs incurred by individuals/businesses which effectively disappear into a vacuum rather than being directly paid/passed onto customers, yet is used as evidence of the completely natural and inherent utility of cars over alternatives. For a different doc more directly about who pays for roads, I've found this one useful. Made by a so-so thinktank, but seems well-sourced and rigorous. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...
- beerandt 7y ago
  I don't know that I'd call it a double standard though- a far greater percentage of the population benefits from road transport than subway. Unless it's handheld and it fits in a bag, goods and services are almost exclusively delivered by road vehicle. And even if a messenger is using the subway to deliver a package, it most likely was on a truck at some point before that.
  - gracenotes 7y ago
    I think we both agree that cars have some significant utility to them, although having utility doesn't mean that any amount of cost is acceptable. This is my problem with "cars pay for themselves, therefore other forms of transit should pay for themselves", which I have seen evidence against (see linked pdf) and nothing conclusively for. The meaningful discussion to have is what we want to support as a society, like your argument. Trucks on last mile delivery are invaluable for some deliveries, as you mention, but then... why else does any other vehicle need to use most streets? Is it reasonable for someone who orders a truck to pay 33% of the cost of that truck on the road? What about 0%, or 100%? Which is best? In cases where alternatives to trucks or cars are less costly overall in some situation, or additional efficiency can be achieved with batching, how much of that is ignored because of these accidentally created incentives? Not even mentioning the indirect cost to communities (walkability, clean air, autonomy of disabled people). I don't have the answers, but I think these are good questions to be asking. For the specifics of policies, we need to base that on data ofc.
    - Shivetya 7y ago
      Well one thing for sure, internet warriors are always willing to give up cars or have others give them up but the simple reality is that cars and access to them is a requirement for many even in the city environment. simply put, living in town is not financially or socially viable for many and the freedom afforded by auto ownership is not giving the value is vastly underestimated by those who would restrict their use by others. as with most lifestyle conversations it is far easier to score internet points with altruistic comments let alone being part of the clique. about as useful as hashtag diplomacy
megablast 7y ago
This is ridiculous. And doesn’t even cover the costs due to 40,000 deaths every year, and over 2million disabled and injured every single year.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zaroth 7y ago
  I strongly disagree. The question was do cars and trucks cover the cost of infrastructure. The answer is that they clearly do. When I see someone claim otherwise, I'll just pipe in with the truth. If you want to talk about externalities, you have to have a clear-eyed analysis of both positive and negative externalities. It's a very difficult analysis, because they both total in the trillions of dollars. I'd welcome a well researched scientific paper on the subject.
vkou 7y ago
Cars do not pay their own way. Tabs, gas taxes, and tickets do not cover even a third of spending on road construction, maintenance, and highway patrol... And that's ignoring the high cost of 'free' parking. But since they are very visible, very direct taxes (And in addition to them, you have to pay for gasoline itself, insurance, parking, etc), drivers who have not done the math mistakenly believe that they aren't being subsidized.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I just did the math, and showed my work. Cars and trucks pay hundreds of billions in taxes annually, which more than covers the cost of creating and maintaining the infrastructure.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Your math: 1. Ignored the amortized cost of all that roadway construction. You can't just look at maintenance costs. 2. Ignored the state and federal funding that went into it. 3. Ignored the cost of 'free' parking. 4. Ignored the cost of highway and parking enforcement (If you have even one officer doing it full-time, the fines don't pay for it.) 5. Is quite atypical.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      1. When Eisenhower founded the national highway system, roads were built to provide for the common defense, and to provide the economic foundation upon which practically our entire economy is based (see trucking figures I quote above). At a cost of $500 billion (that's inflation adjusted) [1] I believe it was the single greatest investment ever made in human history in - terms of total dollar return on investment. 2. State & Federal funding of highways currently totals approximately $175 billion per year. I think inflation adjusted that has been fairly steady of the last half century. It's one of the few things where government spending has actually remained constant. [2] Income from fuel taxes has been reducing over the last decade, while income from sales & excise tax has been increasing. It's reasonable to project that for the last several decades that infrastructure costs have been more than covered by vehicular income, and will continue to be covered for the forseeable future. Setting policy for today and tomorrow should be based on the facts of today and tomorrow. It would be claiming more than I need, to state that vehicular direct revenue has always exceeded direct expenses, when we can at least clearly state this was true for the last decade, and the next. Economically speaking, it would be extremely costly to reduce the utilization rates for infrastructure we have already paid for, for example, in terms of infrastructure cost per passenger-mile. One aspect which will eventually need reform is gas taxes will continue to drop with the spread of EVs, so a new form of usage-based billing will need to be developed -- hopefully one that doesn't involve a national tracking system, but I digress. It's fortunate that roads are so profitable that we haven't needed to raise the Federal fuel tax rate in over a decade, and have ample time to develop a solution. 3. The cost of 'free parking' is a relative rounding error in the $175 billion/yr we're talking about. Don't confuse the theoretical economic value of selling parking, or the potential value of re-purposing the space, with what it cost to build it. There may be a subsidy here, even possibly a large one, but that's not based on the cost of building the spot, but more the perceived theoretical value in renting it. Again, we've gotten into externalties and strayed away from the basic cost analysis. In reality, most parking costs are paid for by the parking consumer in one way or another. For example, at the mall, while you might not pay a fee to park, the store's rent includes the cost of building and maintaining the parking, and the prices of the goods at that store cover that rent. At your place of employment, you might not pay to park out back, but rest assured that the profit margin of the business includes the rent on the building, leaving less room in the P&L for salary. Again, whether the parking "benefit" is taxed as income to the employee is a different discussion as to whether roads pay for themselves. 4. You're getting into externalities here, without considering the positive ones. Police use the roads to prevent and respond to crime, which includes vehicular crime. Don't underestimate how much money is collected by governments through fines, fees, and forfeitures. In D.C. it works out to over $200 per person. Yes, it turns out, highways are overall very lucrative for the police. [3] 5. Thank you! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System [2] - https://edit.urban.org/sites/default/files/hr_4.png https://edit.urban.org/sites/default/files/hr_4.png [3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/10/26/police-collected-fines-fees-and-forfeitures-how-does-your-city-rank/#71d9a4172520 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/10/26/police-c...

beerandt 7y ago

Maybe true, although I haven't found that number (1/3) anywhere. But 20-30% of fuel taxes already go to non-roadway transit spending. Some states only spend ~20% of fuel taxes on roads. And a dozen or so States have increased fuel taxes in the last 5 years, so maybe the trend is starting to reverse.