Road subsidies grow as 'user fees' stagnate
SubsidyScope, a publication of the Pew Charitable Trusts, reports that “user fees” such as gas taxes, registration fees, titling taxes and tolls account for only 51 percent of U.S. highway costs – compared with 71 percent 40 years ago. The rest must be subsidized out of general accounts.
So the private vehicle owner is as much a ward of the state as the city bus rider. It’s just a matter of degree.
Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with paying for transportation out of general revenues. Whether we remain rooted in one place all our lives or travel the world like Marco Polo, we collectively benefit from the mobility that modern transportation systems bring.
What's useful about the SubsidyScope report is that it debunks the notion that auto travel is robust, libertarian, market-driven transportation and that mass transit is a socialistic boondoggle. Clearly, any healthy modern society needs a mixture of both roads and transit -- paid for by any means the public finds to be the least unpalatable.
Comments
One thing to keep in mind: you should not only count the fuel taxes paid by drivers as their only contribution.
You should include the sales tax on the purchase of the new car, the sales tax on parts and service, parking taxes (like the additional 3% paid by downtown parkers for the MIA Charm City Circulator), etc... all taxes that are only paid by those that drive.
Those taxes contribute to the general fund dollars that are spent on roads, too.
Posted by: Tim Patterson | November 30, 2009 10:54 AM
I don't think you fully recognize how much everyone benefits from roads. A recent census report showed that only about 7 million americans in the whole country routinely take mass transit to work. Most of the rest either drive or carpool. And even those who do not drive still need roads. Do bikes and busses fly through the sky?
I pay for roads by driving to work and contributing to the economy, with the government then extracting money from my paycheck and from sales taxes on all my purchases. If I took the bus or rode my bike, I would still need those roads. And even if I didn't drive anywhere, other people need to drive on my behalf. Or perhaps in your dream mass transit world the Cable guy, the plummer, or the UPS guy will haul all their stuff with them on the bus?
Cars and roads benefit society FAR more than Mass transit. Wile it will always have a place in urban areas, transit can NEVER substantially replace that capability.
There is no expectation that 'welfare' or 'national parks' or 'the military' be revenue neutral, so why exactly would anyone expect something that benefits society as much as roads to be, given that drivers contribute so much to the economy simply by driving to work every day? If I didn't pay for roads out of my income, property, and sales taxes I might reasonably think we need higher surcharges, gas taxes, or tolls to maintain them, as it stands it would simply be double dipping.
Posted by: StopBigBrotherMD | December 1, 2009 6:52 AM
Mass transit is a genuine PUBLIC GOOD. Cars are expensive and contribute to pollution, global warming, etc. etc. Sure, we need cars, but the cost of owning and operating a car should be high. Can there be a more inefficient method of transportation than a car? You can fit 500-600 people on one subway train out of Owings Mills in the morning. Imagine all of the gas that saves. Imagine all of the pollution being kept out of the air and run-off being kept out of the water. I say tax cars MORE. I say DOUBLE gas taxes. And up those tolls to $6-$7 a pop!
Posted by: Rich | December 1, 2009 12:03 PM
You're forgetting mandated off-street parking forced on the private sector by local government. The cost for this paid by business dwarfs the non-user fee subsidies to highways.
Posted by: animation tutorials | January 11, 2010 4:53 AM