Do roads pay for themselves? Well, no

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Sarah Goodyear

Highway users, self-sufficiently paying their own way as they motor down the nation's roads. Transit users, always asking for a government handout so that they can ride their subways and buses. It's an old stereotype that's been used to starve transit and fatten roads for generations. And it just isn't true.

Now it's time for a thorough debunking. Tanya Snyder reports on Streetsblog Capitol Hill:

The myth of the self-financed road meets its match today in the form of a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group:

"Do Roads Pay For Themselves?"

The answer is a resounding "no." All told, the authors calculate that road construction has sucked $600 billion out of America's public purse since the dawn of the interstate system.

U.S. PIRG's report takes down the "self-financed roads" canard point by point. It makes it clear that user fees do not pay for new roads ("user fees paid for only 51 percent of highway costs, down 10 percent over the course of a single decade"). And it takes a hard look at the external costs of driving, from environmental pollution and related health impacts to the myriad negative effects of the sprawl that all these roads enable.

As Snyder writes, the report comes out at a crucial time:

With a Republican majority in the House, the myth that roads pay for themselves will be again be enlisted to prioritize highways over transit, as the GOP begins shaping a transportation agenda around

"getting back to basics"

and cutting spending, especially for transit.

"We want to make sure that those falsehoods are not a part of this debate," said [u.S. PIRG's Dan] Smith. "People will think twice before saying roads pay for themselves when the numbers say they don't."

There are some conservatives speaking out about these facts as well. Last year, I interviewed William Lind, director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation, who told me that he is dedicated to educating his fellow Republicans on the truth about road subsidies versus transit subsidies. Here's what Lind told me then:

[it is to us] a bizarre notion that we hear from so many Republican candidates and officeholders, that says public transportation, particularly rail, is somehow left-wing, and if you're a conservative you want highways. These are not ideological issues. They're technical issues, and they need to be dealt with as such. ...

[W]e try to point out to [Republicans] that this isn't just for someone else, but good public transit is something that the people who vote for them use and want and increasingly need. This kind of political lag, of course, is not uncommon. I am, in the short term, not optimistic, because again a lot of the incoming Republicans will have bought the libertarian line, that transit is subsidized and highways are not. Factually, that couldn't be more wrong.

Factually is the key word here. We'll soon find out if the new Congress thinks that way at all.

http://www.grist.org...mselves-well-no

[^_^ 5,021]

Shut up, librul. Be a man and build your own roads, why do you expect others to build them for you? Socialist faggit!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I love PT ####### like this that kill their own argument:

"""""Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways """""

^^^ you list the problem in your artcle and you dare to attack roads? Yay ignorance!

Roads breed Freedom. Trains breed sheep for the slaughter.

[Ban Hammer 13,475]

easy solution: outlaw private vehicles.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Fair warning Steven. Remove your siggy or get a one week ban. You cannot quote someone in your siggy.

Edited January 4, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Obama 2012 1,714]

easy solution: outlaw private vehicles.

you have no idea how many people are actually for this....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I love PT ####### like this that kill their own argument:

"""""Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways """""

^^^ you list the problem in your artcle and you dare to attack roads? Yay ignorance!

Roads breed Freedom. Trains breed sheep for the slaughter.

I love it when you can't read down just one more point that clearly makes the collection vs. expenditure gap clear:

"Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways."

Yay ignorance!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I love it when you can't read down just one more point that clearly makes the collection vs. expenditure gap clear:

"Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways."

Yay ignorance!

I read the whole thing and they answered your statement with my statement. That's the point.

Of course, they also neglect to expand on the excess $600bn purposely to make sure that we just assume it's $600bn too much. They don't look at diverted funds, where that $600bn was actually spent (what states/what roads, etc.)... It's just a big figure for 'shock' factor.

Now let's divide the $600bn by 63 years and we get $9.52bn per year in 2005 dollars mind you as it said... So the question being as I said above, is how much would we be over if gas taxes weren't placed into the general fund and WHERE was the excess money spent.

They can't say "general" funds were transfered without ignoring the fact that gas tax funds went into the general funding....

There are some serious holes in this 'quick' study analysis.

Of course the website itself is a semi-socialist fest anyway, so i wouldn't expect clear definitions except on what they want to make themselves look good, all in the name of betterment for the American people.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The roads and highways pay more than the gasoline taxes and users fees. The engine of this country has been for decades been these highways that pick up and deliver good across country. There has no easier way to deliver raw materials and pick up the finished products. We all love to go to a market and see well stocked shelves. We also love to travel everywhere. Anytime a road or highway has opened a massive shift comes where all real estate along that route becomes crowded with businesses and sub divisions. Each of these pay taxes also and bring in a lot of revenue.

The same thing happened when the rail road crossed the country. The towns along the tracks thrived and the ones bypassed withered and mostly died. It is hard to put a price tag on the wealth that roads have brought this country. Massive shifts of population has occurred.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The roads and highways pay more than the gasoline taxes and users fees. The engine of this country has been for decades been these highways that pick up and deliver good across country. There has no easier way to deliver raw materials and pick up the finished products. We all love to go to a market and see well stocked shelves. We also love to travel everywhere. Anytime a road or highway has opened a massive shift comes where all real estate along that route becomes crowded with businesses and sub divisions. Each of these pay taxes also and bring in a lot of revenue.

The same thing happened when the rail road crossed the country. The towns along the tracks thrived and the ones bypassed withered and mostly died. It is hard to put a price tag on the wealth that roads have brought this country. Massive shifts of population has occurred.

this is valid as well.

As I said above, $9.52bn has been spent per/yr in excess that they cannot explain rationally in their post, but using your example how many $billions has the government made in taxes on the goods, jobs, etc. that those roads have provided. Shall we dare to say $trillions?

Perhaps $9.52bn hasn't been spent at all and it's more of a 'cost of doing business' for the government?

[luckytxn 2,265]

this is valid as well.

As I said above, $9.52bn has been spent per/yr in excess that they cannot explain rationally in their post, but using your example how many $billions has the government made in taxes on the goods, jobs, etc. that those roads have provided. Shall we dare to say $trillions?

Perhaps $9.52bn hasn't been spent at all and it's more of a 'cost of doing business' for the government?

It is hard to say actually say but they placed a tax on fuel to pay for the upkeep of the roads but then they placed the tax funds into a general fund. Pretty much they spent a lot of the money and neglected the roads for decades and it probably cost way more to fix them then if they had spent the money as we went along to keep the roads in good shape. The numbers are skewed by this but I do know that the roads do cause a lot of revenue for Feds, states and local governments that are not even mentioned in the article at all. Most jobs in this country are due to the infrastructure of these highways and roads. Good have to be moved around. Railroads are somewhat limited.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It is hard to say actually say but they placed a tax on fuel to pay for the upkeep of the roads but then they placed the tax funds into a general fund. Pretty much they spent a lot of the money and neglected the roads for decades and it probably cost way more to fix them then if they had spent the money as we went along to keep the roads in good shape. The numbers are skewed by this but I do know that the roads do cause a lot of revenue for Feds, states and local governments that are not even mentioned in the article at all. Most jobs in this country are due to the infrastructure of these highways and roads. Good have to be moved around. Railroads are somewhat limited.

and let's not forget all the $$$ that is made on traffic tickets by local/state governments!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from the report: link

Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation's history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label "user fees." Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.

To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:

· Gasoline taxes aren't "user fees" in any meaningful sense of the term – The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes.

· State gas taxes are often not "extra" fees – Most states exempt gasoline from the state sales tax, diverting much of the money that would have gone into a state's general fund to roads.

· Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways – Since its 1934 inception, Congress only temporarily dedicated gas tax revenues fully to highways during the brief 17-year period beginning in 1956. This was at the start of construction for the Interstate highway network, a project completed in the 1990s.

· Highways don't pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called "user fees" by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.

· Highways "pay for themselves" less today than ever. Currently, highway "user fees" pay only about half the cost of building and maintaining the nation's network of highways, roads and streets.

· These figures fail to include the many costs imposed by highway construction on non-users of the system, including damage to the environment and public health and encouragement of sprawling forms of development that impose major costs on the environment and government finances.

To make the right choices for America's transportation future, the nation should take a smart approach to transportation investments, one that weighs the full costs and benefits of those investments and then allocates the costs of those investments fairly across society.

Edited January 4, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[The_Dude 1,142]

Fair warning Steven. Remove your siggy or get a one week ban. You cannot quote someone in your siggy.

Wrong. But you can't misquote someone, or use out of context quotations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wrong. But you can't misquote someone, or use out of context quotations.

What is the precedent then? I merely quoted what he said, but I took it off after his threat.