Comments on: New Report: Road Funding From Non-Road Users Doubled in 25 Years

By: hhoran

hhoran — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:50:07 +0000

The Pew Subsidyscope piece, as presented, is useful, but very incomplete and misleading. (a) there is a huge mismatch between the users paying gas taxes (the dominant “user fee”) and the roads being built with those taxes (predominately major federal and state highways). The users of interstates and expressways aren’t paying even the 70% share suggested here–there’s a big financial transfer from drivers paying taxes on fuel burned on cheap local roads to drivers using major highways (b) there is an even larger mismatch between the cost of expressways in big metropolitan areas and major highways crossing rural America, yet these are lumped together in the 70% number. If you could magically track gas tax payments by drivers on Interstates crossing Nebraska you’d see a big surplus (revenue much greater than road construction and maintenance costs) whereas you’s see a huge deficit on all urban highways, and a humongous deficit if you include related land use and parking costs, and the true economic costs of the land used for the highway.
Most urban expressways probably get bigger “non-user” subsidies than the big city rapid transit systems. Highway methodologies count fuel taxes from those Nebraska truckers and suburban parents dropping their kids at school as “user fees” for Interstate 95.

By: T4Dude

T4Dude — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:13:49 +0000

Great work as usual, Elana. However, we should not be so sanguine in accepting the “user fee” framing, because it is spurious. The federal gas tax is paid by anyone who buys fuel, whether they ever use a federal-aid road or not. The person who makes long commutes via toll-free interstates is heavily subsidized by others who may primarily use local roads. None of this is to argue against the motor fuel tax, it is to say that the only true “user fees” in transportation are fares or tolls that are collected for a specific facility or mode. And even then, it is the rare case indeed when true user fees cover the full cost. If we are ever to make progress on developing a complete (and clean) transport system, we have to get over the idea that “user fees” are the only appropriate way to pay for it.

By: Bern Grush

Bern Grush — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:11:13 +0000

What happened in 1977-81 that was then corrected to have the drop in user contribution and the rise in non-user?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:58:04 +0000

Unfortunately for the rail-heads, the only graph that is worse than this is the amount of non-user funding for light rail. Everyone travels on a road, so the fact that everyone pays is not that enlightening. Not everyone travels by rail, but believe me everyone pays for rail.

By: Lee Haber

Lee Haber — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:54:50 +0000

I would like to note that this is only for ‘highway’ funding. Local roads, I believe, are completely subsidized by non-users.

What this naturally does is encourage wasteful driving over alternatives such as public transit and shipping goods by rail

By: Sid Burgess

Sid Burgess — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:55:07 +0000

Oh, and we added this story to our national page. Hope it helps spread the truth!

Sid Burgess
National Director
NewsFifty

By: Sid Burgess

Sid Burgess — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:51:13 +0000

Great job highlighting this myth. I have heard the argument time and time again. Can’t seem to get people to see roads as a subsidized transit model.

By: Biker

Biker — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:28:13 +0000

Interesting analysis — I don’t see this trend reversing itself anytime soon.