3 ms·

What we need is fewer roads to maintain, but as you say a whole different problem. It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes

What we need is fewer roads to maintain, but as you say a whole different problem. It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes in a year is probably close. Meanwhile state and local governments (alone) spend over $200B on road maintenance and construction while the federal government spent about $60B on the interstates. $80B is a lot, but if gas taxes covered even just car infrastructure it'd be an extra $1 a gallon already. Even without EVs. In case anyone was under the misapprehension that roads are budget neutral. Frustrating (to get more off track) that other transit is expected to somehow be profitable when roads are subsidized so heavily. I wish it wasn't so critical for our supply chain, EV trucks probably works a lot better between a train terminal and final destination than it does hauling across I-40. Sources: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline... https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/DOT_Budget_Highlights_FY_2025_508.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/D...

chneu 1y ago
Oh wow I've never thought of it the way you did, that roads are subsidized so heavily vs public transit being expected to break even. That's a great take. Thanks.
- bumby 1y ago
  I think the argument is that roads contribute more to the overall economy than public transit.
  - neltnerb 1y ago
    And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do. We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives. But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads. I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in. Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?
    - bumby 1y ago
      Definitely agree that it doesn’t have to be that way, but doesn’t the US already use rail for commerce at a much higher rate than other nations? Rail in the US is mostly freight, not public transit. I also believe the highway system provides more redundancy in terms of national security, because rail is has higher upfront costs, constraints, and less resiliency (but I could be wrong).

chneu 1y ago

Oh wow I've never thought of it the way you did, that roads are subsidized so heavily vs public transit being expected to break even. That's a great take. Thanks.

bumby 1y ago
I think the argument is that roads contribute more to the overall economy than public transit.
- neltnerb 1y ago
  And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do. We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives. But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads. I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in. Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?
  - bumby 1y ago
    Definitely agree that it doesn’t have to be that way, but doesn’t the US already use rail for commerce at a much higher rate than other nations? Rail in the US is mostly freight, not public transit. I also believe the highway system provides more redundancy in terms of national security, because rail is has higher upfront costs, constraints, and less resiliency (but I could be wrong).