The same is probably true in most states (Wisconsin is not a particular outlier on either its gas tax or its amount of road construction). So if you add in the states, it’s even more certain that roads are subsidized by non-road-users.

Some good work has been done on this point and I’ve included a couple of links below.

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

http://www.txdot.gov/KeepTexasMovingNewsletter/11202006.html#Cost

http://www.stlbikefed.org/Advocacy/Cyclistspaytaxestoo/tabid/150/Default.aspx

The economics of this will push the green button … until they can have their cars and not pollute the planet we’re not done, people will not give up the car, ever.

I hope you’re wrong, because then we’ll still have plenty of emissions AND sprawl, carnage, obesity and a system that leaves those who can’t drive high and dry. Thanks, Tom!

Why is technology-specific subsidiy preferably to cap-and-trade with auctioned permits, to a per-tonne carbon tax, or to a petroleum import tariff?

Cheers,

–Ian

What this will do is turn our dependence on oil into a glut of biomass produced fuels, prices below $1/gallon of a renewable resource that grows with population.

The economics of this will push the green button … until they can have their cars and not pollute the planet we’re not done, people will not give up the car, ever.

Switching fuel cuts harmful emissions by 60% over gas-ethanol, extract it to burn it up, so is a big step in the right direction on greenhouse emissions, and, this fuel can be produced locally removing the coercive effect of the oil economy from the equation of national budgets.

Given that drivers are on average wealthier than non-drivers, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop subsidizing driving altogether? User fees would be one way to accomplish that.

I’m sorry, I meant mass transit fares would have to rise almost 300% to pay for itself.

What you’re missing here, Judge, is the value of ridership. Most of the subsidies are required because the buses and trains are running less than half full for a large portion of the day.

Almost half of the public bus systems in the US can make an operational profit with an average of forty people per bus – without raising fares. Or with an average of twenty people per bus paying double the current fare.

“it is false to suggest that those large expenses justify a heavily subsidized road infrastructure at the expense of the general public.” It sure would be false to suggest that — that’s why people should realize these costs.

When you consider that most mass transit systems today operate at only a 50% fare-box recovery ratio for operating expenses, and with completely uncompensated capital expenses at least equal to annual operating costs (50% of highway expenses are capital expenses, and this half estimate may be rather low for mass transit because it has significantly higher initial construction costs than highways), that means the average mass transit fare would have to rise almost over 400% to pay for itself, and to end the almost $11 billion dollars a year that go from highway user fees to mass transit. The financial comparison with highway’s 16% increase doesn’t even come close.

Again, there are other reasons to tax highway users using variable toll pricing and other congestion mitigation strategies, but there is no doubt that highways are infinitely more financially self-sustaining than mass transit.

And while the analysis is certainly incomplete, it’s not entirely out of order. If you include all highway miles, you still wind up with an estimated gas tax rate around 2.5 times the current one, and that’s to cover a highway budget most regard as inadequate to the task of properly maintaining the roads. Adding in state revenues doesn’t help, since it’s far from clear that state gas tax revenues cover state highway expenses. I’ve previously linked an analysis from the Texas DOT which suggested that state gas taxes would have to be considerably higher to cover the life-cycle expenses — construction and maintenance — of its roads. No Texas road pays for itself with gas tax revenue.

Meanwhile, we’ve also learned that the transportation budget can be destroyed by rising fuel prices. A commenter above says that trust fund revenues last year were $31 billion (note: that’s not all gas tax; close to half comes from taxes on diesel and other trucking fees). That’s down about $7 billion from 2006. This suggests that if you begin tweaking gas taxes to be more in line with budgets, you quickly find yourself on the wrong side of the revenue curve.

But commenters are right that much of this is beside the point. It would be most efficient to charge drivers fees for use of scarce road space. This would reduce congestion, raise more (and more dependable) revenue, and better balance travel across modes. That’s the point I closed with, and that’s the point I hope resonates.

Streetsblog should really dig into their numbers a bit further and post a correction, because while the central point and debate are worthy, the numbers are just wrong, and leaving bad analysis out there is a tool from the O’Toole toolbox that shouldn’t be borrowed.

Now if you want to quantify how unsustainable our surface transportation system is, have a look at the amount of state and local income/sales/property taxes gets dumped into the system…
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm

What’s your point, anyway? That since highways are not self-supporting, therefore money-losing transit somehow makes more sense?

Incidentally, your claim that “transit systems will be unable to raise fares without losing riders to the already congested roads” is baffling. If roads are congested, then by definition, there is no room on them for ex-transit users.

“The Highway Trust Fund, which is primarily funded through federal gas tax receipts, collected $31 billion in revenue between October 2007 and September 2008″ (Source: FHWA)

I happen to agree that our fuel tax needs to be increased enormously to properly price auto transportation and manage demand. However, I also think that sloppy, easily discredited analysis full of phantom numbers does no one any good. I’ll repeat what I said before: pricing transportation to manage demand has nothing at all to do with “paying your fair share,” and auto drivers certainly do pay for the highways they use.

The costs you mention (purchase of vehicle, insurance, maintenance) don’t benefit the public. They are transactions between households and private companies for the acquisition and upkeep of private property. All of the user fees associated with mass transit benefit the public because they help public-transit organizations that provide service to all.

While it is worthwhile to point how expensive it is to become a motorist (and I think even AAA would say that your estimate of $5,000 is quite low), it is false to suggest that those large expenses justify a heavily subsidized road infrastructure at the expense of the general public.

(Sorry to be grumpy here, but,) this post would have benefited from putting into writing what the gas tax is today and how much is actually raises per year. Here is my calculation. If there are 31 billion gallons consumed and the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, that’s $5.7 billion raised, a far cry from the $24 billion needed.

Steve,

With that kind of gaping hole, that doesn’t seem like a closed system.

In February, the Congressionally appointed National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, many of our nation’s foremost transportation experts, acknowledged the need for a massive infusion of money into the highway trust fund. It recommended that a mileage based fee system be implemented by 2020, and an immediate 54% increase in the gasoline tax which should then be linked to inflation. Our nation’s highways are clearly underpriced and subsidized.