Roads Don’t Pay For Themselves Either
Decatur Metro | February 14, 2011Road advocates often get worked up about the fact that public transportation systems, like MARTA, don’t pay entirely for themselves through user-fees (aka fares). Currently, MARTA’s ridership fee covers about 32% of costs to run the transit system. As many of you are aware, much of the remainder is paid for by a 1-cent sales tax in DeKalb and Fulton counties.
The common continuation of this critique usually points to roads and highways as a better model of user-fees (aka the gas tax) paying for a large majority of the transportation costs.. But a recent study just released by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) hope to disprove this point.
First, as the graph above shows, only around 50% of highway funding is currently off-set by user-fees. And over the last 50 years that number has continued to fall, mainly because the gas tax isn’t adjusted for inflation. And the future outlook looks even worse. Not only do cars continue to become more fuel-efficient, and drivers end up paying less annually in gas taxes for the same number of miles driven, but people are driving less than in previous years. Oh, and then there’s this lovely Catch-22…
On one hand, for a new or expanded highway to “pay for itself,” it must result in a significant overall increase in miles driven and fuel consumption. On the other hand, however, increasing the number of miles driven on a highway undercuts the most common rationale for highway construction: reducing congestion. Indeed, if a highway expansion project truly succeeds in reducing congestion, motorists will sit less in traffic and burn less fuel—reducing gasoline tax revenue.
So while we will continue to argue the pros/cons of all transportation options, it seems pretty clear that the pay-your-way argument doesn’t really pan out for ANY current transportation method. And if the current popular conception is to deem all forms of transit a “social program”, than roads and highways should also carry that label.
h/t: LandMatters
Just another case of the facts having a liberal bias!
Thanks for digging this up and reporting it–and, like “sycamore” I can’t wait for the blowback that will uncover this liberal conspiracy of socialist mass transit lovers.
I agree, the liberals shouldn’t be allowed to use facts. Their opponents do not have any to support their case, so this gives an unfair advantage to those liberals. If we allow this, they will probably start to say that people with “higher education” have used some “scientific” thingy to “prove” their “theory”.
Or, watch the oil companies lead the lambs to their slaughter…
Facts are so hopey-changey.
Well, those of you who are slavishly devoted to facts and free of all personal bias will excuse me for being such a doubting Thomas, but:
– Why does this graph stop at 2005? 2005 isn’t “current” by the way. Even us small-government heathens know it was 6 years ago. Is it because 2005 just happens to be a historical low in the % of spending funded by these user fees? Just asking, because otherwise it seems odd to stop examining the data in 2005.
– Oh by the way, even the 50% figure from 2005 crushes the 36% DM listed for MARTA, which is not a historical average, but a one-year snapshot of the percent of operating costs funded by fares. It thereby excludes the very substantial capital costs of actually building MARTA in the first place. All highway spending, on the other hand, would include all costs, including building new roads from scratch. So this is not really a fair comparison. To illustrate that, assume we do in fact spend Obama’s proposed $500 billion on high-speed rail. Anyone want to bet that those rail systems will not recoup $155 billion in user fees within the first10 years of operation, let alone in one year?
– Even if you brush aside all of these questions, the fact that roads receive public funding from non-users does not make the case for a half a trillion in new spending on rail systems. Like I said above, DM’s comparison to MARTA actually hurts the case for rail, because it indicates that, even at what appear to be historic lows, roads come a lot closer to self-sufficiency than do rail systems.
DEM, I think you’re missing the point here. No one (of sane mind) is saying that these figures indicate we should be putting our money into rail instead.
For years, the right has been denigrating rail because it “doesn’t pay for itself.” What’s important about these figures is that they show that “paying for itself,” when you’re talking about public infrastructure, is an unreasonable standard that no shared infrastructure can meet.
That’s a huge leap forward in the conversation because it means that now the conversation can revolve around shared priorities and difficult choices instead of around how one side has it all figured out and the other side is living in fantasy land.
We’re *all* living in fantasy land and we’ll always want more than we can afford. But at least, with figures like these, we can now work together with a shared understanding that we’re all equally screwed.
Perhaps, Scott, but I think that is not really what most on the right are saying. There’s a big difference between paying for itself and needing constant, massive subsiody. So let’s stipulate that roads and rail both need those big subsidies. When we’re already stretched to the breaking point from a financial perspective, why doesn’t it make more sense to build more roads, which are far closer to self-sufficient and we know will be used, than to spend hundreds of billions of rail systems that may or may not be remotely self-sufficient?
Re: “why doesn’t it make more sense to build more roads, which are far closer to self-sufficient and we know will be used”
It’s tough to draw fair comparisons here. It’s hard to imagine transit competing in the landscape we know. However, since infrastructure is a forward investment, we are, in part, debating what future we want (how we want to live), but we are also trying to ascertain what the future has in store (which investments will look better after the next 50-100 years).
Personally, when I compare rail to roads, I focus on scale and flexibility. I’m concerned about how roads scale. If nothing else, more lane-miles of road will incur that much more in maintenance cost.
One other thought, if adding lanes of road induces demand, when do you stop adding lanes? How much right of way do we need to reserve?
There you are! I was gettin’ worried…
-I’m all for a good conspiracy theory, but I’m pretty sure the chart goes to 2008 or 2009. The labels are just every 5 years, so we just know that it doesn’t go to 2010. Notice the hash-marks that continue after 2005.
- Substantial capital costs of building MARTA – Umm, what about the building of the interstate highways? Was that free? As for the 36% vs. the 50%, I apologize for my 1-year MARTA number, but I was on limited time. If you can find a longer term one, I’d greatly appreciate it. That said, as I mentioned in the post, the structure of the gas-tax is riddled with potential pitfalls that transit fares don’t have. Cars get more fuel-efficient, people drive less. Not to mention the quoted catch-22 of building more roads (less congestion also means greater fuel efficiency). I think these are serious concerns that go a ways in closing that 36% to 50% gap.
-Ah, but at least you’re not saying “roads pay for themselves”, so mission accomplished!
Substantial capital costs of building MARTA – Umm, what about the building of the interstate highways? Was that free?
______
Of course not, but my point is that such expense is included in the sum total of all highway spending, whereas it is not included in a snapshot of MARTA 2010. If we compared MARTA vs. Interstate 75, for example, to get a fair comparison we’d have to know what both cost from inception and, amortizing the start-up capital costs, which is coming closer to paying for itself? I don’t think your comparison does that.
That said, as I mentioned in the post, the structure of the gas-tax is riddled with potential pitfalls that transit fares don’t have. Cars get more fuel-efficient, people drive less.
_______________________
The biggest pitfall is that raising the tax is not popular, hence it doesn’t happen all that often. The same is true of MARTA fares, which did not budge a nickel for about 8 years.
Maybe you are right about fuel efficiency and driving less, but it is a striking change from the constant worry about SUV sales we’ve heard for years. I suspect miles driven has been coming down because oil has gotten a lot more expensive since 2008, aside from a brief dip here and there. In any case, that revenue can in theory be made up for my an increase in the amount of the per gallon tax, but that just leads right back to the political reality noted above.
-Ah, but at least you’re not saying “roads pay for themselves”, so mission accomplished!
_____________
I can’t recall ever having said that. Roads are, almost by definition, public goods that require tax money. Same for rail, of course, but I have yet to see an convincing argument that the massive costs of rail are worth it in view of the very uncertain ridership potential.
Thanks Dem. I’ve just recently figured out how to reply to another person’s comments so here goes. I think you are awesome! I don’t care if you are a man or woman, Decatur homeowner or outsider, Democrat or Republican, a real person or just a figment of Mr. Decatur Metro’s imagination.
You Are Awesome!
As to roads or public transit, I’m a roads guy. Public transit doesn’t go to many places I’m interested in. The public transit crowd can show graphs from the Apostle Paul and I’ll STILL be in favor or roads.I guess its a freedom thing. Public transit people just don’t understand.
One more thing, Happy Valentine’s Day!
Well, thanks, I’m not sure what to say about that. FYI, I am real, a dude, don’t live in Decatur, and neither democrat nor republican. My goal in life is to tormet DM about trains and local food, and to convince him to stop drinking Dogfish Head.
LOL. And I thank you for it!
As a fellow history guy Chris, I am curious how you feel about all the historic infrastructure that’s been lost to parking decks and lots.
That’s one of the main gateway drug arguments that got me hooked on transit thought.
Area roads (more precisely the potholes and metal plates) and metro drivers (by their posture and in their numbers) seem capable of transforming my automobile from freedom machine to necessary evil, when within a 45 mile radius.
[edited]
Marshall, please stop the personal attacks or I’ll have to start moderating all of your comments. Thanks, DM.
Your comment Marshall sounds to me like a personal attack on the individual you are refering to. I’m rather surprised that DM has not stepped in to moderate your comment.
I agree with Skeptic. No need for for this, Marshall.
While I probably feel more comfortable with your political opinions than Mr. Billingsley’s, I don’t see what the content of his above post has to do with knowledge or ignorance. He was expressing his opinions and preferences, not expressing knowledge or lack thereof.
Teachers should be able to express their opinions on this blog, left-leaning, right-leaning, or in the middle, without having their job threatened, as long as their comments are legal, non-violent, not lewd, not dangerous, and not violating any work-related confidentiality or other work responsibilities.
You may disagree with Mr. Billingsley, but let me tell you one thing, he is NOT ignorant. Chris Billingsley is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and enthusiastic people I know. He has taught my child, and he’s one of the finest educators around. He works tirelessly for our students and I’m kinda upset that somebody might malign him in ANY WAY.
BTW, I think we need roads AND transit. Mass transit would get used if it went to the places people want to go, and sometimes it does. When gas prices get high enough, we’re all going to want that mass transit to go our way.
I apologize if my comments towards Chris Billingsley were interpreted as a personal attack. That was not my intent.
But it is my intent to point out that the guy is just dead wrong on this issue and many others discussed on this blog, such as when he stated last week that the 2000 Strategic Plan was a failure and that our new Strategic Plan is some sort of “scary” “government intrustion.”
Now, that is pretty outrageous. And, as DM mentioned, to be a history buff, but refuse to acknowledge what his driving/roads everywhere attitude have destroyed so many historic buildings in order to promote the parking of the glorious automobile. All the while he curtly dismisses the benefits of transit in order to promote his own idea of personal freedom.
I will also refer you to Chris Billingsley’s comments about our wonderful, parent created Farm to School program, in which he called Farm to School program the “food police,” and said that Farm to School is “not about better nutrition. It’s about force.”
Just saying the guy’s views our out of whack with our community.
http://decatur.patch.com/articles/first-lady-mentions-local-decaturite-in-speech
Your original comment been removed. Marshall, please refrain from personal attacks or I’ll be forced to pre-moderate all of your comments. Thanks.
Marshall, I’m failing to see how your response aligns. If I read it right, Chris said he wants his car (and the roads for it) regardless of any facts. For me, that’s reason enough to ignore the parting shot.
Marshall’s probably reacting more to “I’ve just recently figured out how to reply to another person’s comments” than Chris Billingsley’s transit stance. (Marshall! Not nice! Now write 100 times: I will not call folks ignorant! ) Mr. B’s shared some really cool history stuff on here. Having him participate in back & forth exchanges should be very interesting too.
Well, if teachers are going to be criticized for their lack of IT knowledge and experience, an awful lot of great CSD teachers are at risk, especially at the elementary school level. Some are real tech savvy but a lot still don’t communicate well by email or classroom web site. Of course the terrible First Class email system doesn’t help. Teachers who have only been exposed to that system may never understand technology!
Um.. Guessed wrong and unintentionally added to the criticism. My apology to Chris Billingsley.
Marshall, responding with name calling does nothing to advance your position. (What is that position?) But if you insist on responding in kind (to being called dumb), you should at least include some intangible cover (e.g. it’s a freedom thing).
I take your first point. I wish I could find the cost from inception data. I’ll let you know if I ever do.
—————
I believe you’re helping me make my point. So not only is the gas-tax a Catch-22 in terms of the “more funding, the less revenue” AND that with more fuel efficient cars and people driving less will decrease revenues, BUT ALSO it’s impossible to increase it. MARTA may not have raised fares in 8 years, but the gas-tax hasn’t been raised in 18 years.
—————-
Roads also have uncertain ridership potential. Only difference is that a deserted, rarely used road is a tranquil setting for a lovely photo at sunrise, while a 1/4 full MARTA train is cause for full-blown outrage.
Not to kinda change the subject, but I think the gas tax for our state & nationally should be raised. Doesn’t Georgia have one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation?
I’ll go along with this only if they lower the ad valorem tag fees. I’ve never understood this. Our six year old minivan still costs over $300 in registration fees. Yet if we bought a new one, which is safer and better on gas mileage, we are PENALIZED just because it’s worth more.
Not just one of the lowest, but THE lowest.
Token, the ad valorem tax does not go to roads, btw.
Oh, didn’t know that, Steve. So I guess I’m comparing apples to oranges.
Where do the ad valorem taxes go?
Ad valorem taxes are essentially property taxes and go in the general fund of the taxing authority.
Tilting at windmills. Amuse yourselves if you must, but don’t get your hopes up…
I might agree, but I’d need to know what I’m agreeing with. Which is the windmill? HRT? A double-decked Connector? User-fee supported transportation?
Those who are opposed to mass transit systems evidently favor a 4-lane highway to all of their favorite destinations, no matter how many acres of right-of-way and paving that may require. God forbid that you should leave any tree or grass standing in the path of your pursuit of pleasurable destinations! Why not just pave EVERYTHING except the buildings already standing, and let people drive and park EVERYWHERE. Would that solve the problem of providing a direct path to a chosen destination? Ummmm… peak oil is with us now — the question is when people will realize that and start to prepare for that kind of future.
o/ o/ “They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot…..”o/o/
People like Wendell Cox and Randall O’Toole would have you just that.
Yes! Get your shirts here: http://www.aerostich.com/pave-the-planet-t-shirt.html
If only we had a streetcar in downtown Atlanta, then we wouldn’t need to keep having this silly roads vs. trains debate.
Streetcar = it’s like a train that runs on the road, so everybody wins!
How do you figure? Is it not more like a bus without tires?
I believe it’s less than harmonious sharing (to say nothing of cyclists). Also, I think there’s a storied history between cars and streetcars that didn’t lead to a happy marriage.
Good point Bobby. My post was meant to be dripping with sarcasm – this streetcar boondoggle boils my blood for reasons I can’t even fully explain – but obviously my post failed to convey my true intentions.
On a separate note, I’ve really enjoyed your contributions to this discussion, even though I’m more aligned with the DEM/Billingsley camp. Good, thought proviking points all around!
I’m glad you clarified; I definitely mistook your remark. I’ve come to see “streetcar” as the latest in transit mantra in Atlanta. Can you point me to a post where you’ve explained why the mention of streetcars boils your blood?
And, thanks for the kind words.
It’s not really my intent to take sides. I’ve noticed that transportation comes up… not infrequently, and I’d like to see thoughtful discourse on the subject. (Decatur strikes me as an interesting setting for such a discussion.)
Umm…We’ve had plenty of thoughtful discourse on transportation over the years. Many posts have even been featured or linked to on Streetsblog. Are you suggesting that our conversations have never been thoughtful, or are you just new to the site?
Neither; I think there was context.
I haven’t followed your site religiously. If you have a highlight reel, I’ll check it out.
(Also, my remark on discourse was more for transit than transportation as a whole. If that affects your reading, then I’m sorry it didn’t come out that way.)
Bobby- There’s a very handy guide to all past related posts in the box located just below each post. Clicking on the “tag” word will take you to its summary list. (Of course not every great comment matches the post’s subject matter, so some are lost in the mix.)
That’s something to keep in mind! Is there a Miranda rights equivalent for WordPress blogging?
—- You have the right to not post. You may post elsewhere with trackbacks. Everything you do post will live within the tag cloud. You have the right to provide for your own curator, and if you cannot afford one then tagging will be substituted in place of one. Your understanding is not required and may be undesirable. —-
Oh Lordy! Miranda rights sure would be helpful right about now!
(DM- Please don’t kill our new friend! He doesn’t know about the “post” vs “comment” thing!)
(Bobby- DM puts up a post; then we all comment. Don’t mix up the two! Funny comment, though! :0)
Now here is something we can all be happy about from the President’s budget proposal:
$71B for the Federal Highway Adminstration vs. $22B for the Federal Transit Administration (and $8B for Railroads…) (Roads Win!)
Federaly Highway Administration increase of 4% vs. Federal Transportation Administration increase of 127% (Mass Transit Wins!) Good to see trains getting bigger share of the pie.
But wait: Interest on the Public Debt? $474B!
Medicare and Social Security? Sorry can’t count that high…
I’m late to this convo, but really, no one has brought up the external costs of roads vs transit? I think that helps wash the subsidy gap even more… If you need an example, car fumes contribute to poor air quality, which contributes to respitory problems, which lead to decreases in productivity and increases in inhalers/other meds, which increase costs for all of us (through our insurance premiums and gov’t subsidy healthcare funding via taxes). I’m not an economist, and a terrible #s person in general, but this concept needs to be part of the discussion and is all too frequently absent.
Exactly!
Addiction to cars promotes poor air quality, it promotes poor health (less walking), its funds terrorist organizations/states overseas, and leads to many thousands of preventable accidents and deaths of people every year.
Also keep in mind the continuing maintenance cost. Roads need to be repaved every 5 or 10 years. Rails last much longer – some are in service that were laid over 50 years ago. A well-maintained rail car can also last 50 years or more – cars wear our much faster.
In terms of indirect effects of road-based transportation, until lead was removed from all gasoline in the ?late 1980s?, all Americans had lead levels above the current standard for abnormally high lead levels (a higher cut-off was used back then or everyone would have been deemed to have lead poisoning). This translates to a certain amount of evidence-based reduction in anyone whose mind was still growing and developing back then. Depressing but true.