4 ms·

Don’t forget too that the cost of proving roads is also ‘subsidised’ in most countries, but we’re tend to be a bit blind to that. (This is not an argument agai

Don’t forget too that the cost of proving roads is also ‘subsidised’ in most countries, but we’re tend to be a bit blind to that. (This is not an argument against rail - I just find that subsidies are often mentioned with respect to rail but not with roads).

spacebanana7 2y ago
Calculating the subsidy associated with state maintenance of roads for private vehicles is difficult. Some basic level of signage and hazard prevention (potholes, ice etc) is necessary for emergency vehicles and other government operations. Thereafter, although there is some maintenance cost associated with the road wear from private vehicles and the additional infrastructure required for higher traffic volumes, we don’t have an easy way to calculate the cost.
- clhodapp 2y ago
  Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl livable?
  - treflop 2y ago
    Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.
    - Arainach 2y ago
      There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to. We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad. If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.
      - bjelkeman-again 2y ago
        And active urban planning avoids sprawl.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    At a high level, urbanisation rates increased through the road building binge of the 20th century. Perhaps those new migrants to cities would’ve chosen to stay in the countryside without roads? Worsening the economics of rail. Or maybe they’d use their collective voting power to get more rail friendly new towns built? I don’t think the answer is obvious.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      Before the road building binge there was the rail building binge, though limited to the largest cities. As an example, see the history of the Metropolitan Line in London.
- xg15 2y ago
  Also bridges and tunnels, which seem to be very expensive to maintain.
- halostatue 2y ago
  I disagree that it's difficult: excepting toll roads and "unassumed" roads‡, the subsidy is 100% (and most toll roads are likely subsidized at a substantial fraction of their cost, since the tolls are rarely high enough to be self-sufficient). It doesn't matter whether the money used to pay for road maintenance comes from property taxes (like in Toronto), income taxes (Ontario areas not maintained by cities / regions / counties), or gas taxes (much of the U.S.?). If you're not paying per use of the road, there is a 100% subsidy on the maintenance of the road. There are definite costs to not maintaining those roads (people won't move where there aren't roads; unmaintained roads will result in more costs to the people using those roads as their vehicles are damaged more frequently—which may result in costs to the municipality for not properly maintaining those roads), but we should not pretend roads are self-sustaining or aren't entirely subsidized. ‡ Unassumed roads are those built privately by the landowners in common and are not maintained by the local government. When used for private dwellings, these roads usually fall under the sway of the local government after a period of time, even if they were built initially by a subdivision subcontractor.
throwaway48476 2y ago
People don't think of it as a subsidy because they are not charged per use a la toll road.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  People also pay fuel tax, registration tax, and other taxes that fund the roads
  - usefulcat 2y ago
    I think the point is that if they had to do those things every time they used a road it would be more obvious (like buying a train ticket).
    - komali2 2y ago
      They do have to do it every time, through the fuel tax. Driving costs fuel. I guess people just don't think of it though.
      - chii 2y ago
        it's not a subsidy if it's a user-pays system. A subsidy is only a subsidy if users don't necessarily pay the full cost, and the rest is borne by some other group of people who _don't_ use the service.
        geysersam 2y ago
        One issue is that people often benefit from infrastructure without explicitly using it. Example, road network isn't paid by car owners. But non-drivers clearly benefit from the road network, is the road network subsidized? Other example, people who rarely take the train still benefit from rail infrastructure (freight, reduced congestion etc). Is the rail network subsidized?
        komali2 2y ago
        Oh to clarify on that point, the majority of roadwork is paid for by property taxes in I believe everywhere in the USA. Certainly in Texas.
Gibbon1 2y ago
I remember Brad deLong did back of the napkin analysis to determine how much a bart fare should be including the cost of freeways. It was minus $2.00 or something.

spacebanana7 2y ago

Calculating the subsidy associated with state maintenance of roads for private vehicles is difficult. Some basic level of signage and hazard prevention (potholes, ice etc) is necessary for emergency vehicles and other government operations. Thereafter, although there is some maintenance cost associated with the road wear from private vehicles and the additional infrastructure required for higher traffic volumes, we don’t have an easy way to calculate the cost.

clhodapp 2y ago
Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl livable?
- treflop 2y ago
  Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.
  - Arainach 2y ago
    There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to. We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad. If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.
    - bjelkeman-again 2y ago
      And active urban planning avoids sprawl.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  At a high level, urbanisation rates increased through the road building binge of the 20th century. Perhaps those new migrants to cities would’ve chosen to stay in the countryside without roads? Worsening the economics of rail. Or maybe they’d use their collective voting power to get more rail friendly new towns built? I don’t think the answer is obvious.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Before the road building binge there was the rail building binge, though limited to the largest cities. As an example, see the history of the Metropolitan Line in London.
xg15 2y ago
Also bridges and tunnels, which seem to be very expensive to maintain.
halostatue 2y ago
I disagree that it's difficult: excepting toll roads and "unassumed" roads‡, the subsidy is 100% (and most toll roads are likely subsidized at a substantial fraction of their cost, since the tolls are rarely high enough to be self-sufficient). It doesn't matter whether the money used to pay for road maintenance comes from property taxes (like in Toronto), income taxes (Ontario areas not maintained by cities / regions / counties), or gas taxes (much of the U.S.?). If you're not paying per use of the road, there is a 100% subsidy on the maintenance of the road. There are definite costs to not maintaining those roads (people won't move where there aren't roads; unmaintained roads will result in more costs to the people using those roads as their vehicles are damaged more frequently—which may result in costs to the municipality for not properly maintaining those roads), but we should not pretend roads are self-sustaining or aren't entirely subsidized. ‡ Unassumed roads are those built privately by the landowners in common and are not maintained by the local government. When used for private dwellings, these roads usually fall under the sway of the local government after a period of time, even if they were built initially by a subdivision subcontractor.

throwaway48476 2y ago

People don't think of it as a subsidy because they are not charged per use a la toll road.

SoftTalker 2y ago
People also pay fuel tax, registration tax, and other taxes that fund the roads
- usefulcat 2y ago
  I think the point is that if they had to do those things every time they used a road it would be more obvious (like buying a train ticket).
  - komali2 2y ago
    They do have to do it every time, through the fuel tax. Driving costs fuel. I guess people just don't think of it though.
    - chii 2y ago
      it's not a subsidy if it's a user-pays system. A subsidy is only a subsidy if users don't necessarily pay the full cost, and the rest is borne by some other group of people who _don't_ use the service.
      - geysersam 2y ago
        One issue is that people often benefit from infrastructure without explicitly using it. Example, road network isn't paid by car owners. But non-drivers clearly benefit from the road network, is the road network subsidized? Other example, people who rarely take the train still benefit from rail infrastructure (freight, reduced congestion etc). Is the rail network subsidized?
      - komali2 2y ago
        Oh to clarify on that point, the majority of roadwork is paid for by property taxes in I believe everywhere in the USA. Certainly in Texas.

Gibbon1 2y ago

I remember Brad deLong did back of the napkin analysis to determine how much a bart fare should be including the cost of freeways. It was minus $2.00 or something.