1nterceptor

"A report published earlier this year confirms, in tremendous detail, a very basic fact of transportation that’s widely disbelieved: Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. Published jointly by the Frontier Group and the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, “Who Pays for Roads?” exposes the myth that drivers are covering what they’re using.

To be sure, these same questions can be raised about public-transit, biking, and walking projects. And for transit projects, close financial scrutiny is far more common than for roads. A key difference with these other forms of transportation is that they arguably come with bigger social benefits—lower congestion, less pollution, and greater safety. They also make transportation available to those who don’t own or can’t operate a motor vehicle."

Read the full article:
The True Costs of Driving - The Atlantic

Shimagnolo

Another consideration is the relationship of weight to road damage:

"Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car."

Source: The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

Or, to put it another way:
A 3000 lb car does ~50,000 times as much damage as a 180 lb guy on a 20 lb bike.

RPK79

Of course even if you don't drive you still use the roads indirectly.

Edit: In case that isn't clear enough, all the goods we consume and materials our buildings are constructed with are delivered via those roads. So, it is in the best interest of EVERYONE that those roads are built and maintained. I'm a small government guy and even I see roads as one of the few line items government should be involved in providing.

bakes1

Who was disputing the fact in the first place?
Does it make a difference if they are or are not fully paying for certain infrastructure?
Who has issue with this?
Do people not understand that everyone benefits from the use of the roads? How would product get delivered to store shelves without roads?

Shimagnolo

Just last week I was taking a break at a convenience store when some cranky old lady gave me a sermon about how cyclists don't pay their way, and should be taxed and licensed.

bakes1

I hear you but do you really care what some cranky old lady that most likely has a musty old house full of stray cats says or thinks as it pertains to your cycling?

RPK79

Arguably being the key word in that sentence.

howsteepisit

Think of it as we all are paying for having a road infrastructure. Personally, I like having roads, and do not object to paying for their existence.

kickstart

As already mentioned, even if one only walks, they're still entirely dependent on them unless they forage for nuts and berries wearing a skin loincloth...and not participating in this thread.

badger1

Precisely this. I live 'car light(ish)', and will cycle -- or use public transit -- whenever possible. I do so out of personal choice/preference, and a bit of closet 'environmentalism'.

Our cyclepaths, MUPs, and public transit are of course paid for by property and general taxes/tax revenues etc. -- in other words, by those who are for the most part 'car heavy' or even 'car exclusive'. This is North America, after all.

So I benefit directly from those kinds of subsidies paid by those who don't use the facilities so subsidized; in return, I benefit (as do we all -- all of us) both indirectly and directly from the road/highway network. So I have absolutely no issue with 'paying' for road/highway facilities, and wouldn't have an issue with doing so even were I to choose to live 'car free'.

badger1

Precisely this, too.

B. Carfree

It's not a binary world. One can use the roads to a very low extent or to an extreme amount (both directly and indirectly). The fact is that car-dependent people use them a lot more than car-light or car-free people, but we all pay for the majority of the damage. If motorists were paying their fair share, and this goes for freight as well, then the pricing would likely cause changes in use and increases in efficiency.

Chris516

That goes without saying.

indyfabz

Yes. Remember the bi-partisan budget committee that was formed several years back? It concluded that the federal gas tax covers only about 1/3 of federal highway spending. The rest comes from the general fund. The federal tax would have to be trebled for it to cover all federal highway spending.

indyfabz

+1.

seeker333

Thanks. From the linked article I found this:

https://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/fil...oads%20vUS.pdf

"Walking and bicycling inflict virtually no damage on roads and streets, and take up only a tiny fraction of the road space occupied by vehicles. Bicyclists and pedestrians likely pay far more in general taxes to facilitate the use of local roads and streets by drivers than they receive in benefits from state and federal infrastructure investment paid for through the gas tax."

jeichelberg87

All roads should be privately owned tollways. Period.

kickstart

Yet the person who wrote that and everyone reading it are most likely using a computer, sitting on a seat, at a desk, in a climate controlled building, using electricity, wearing clothing, drinking or eating something, travel to and from their location.......

Every product and service that touches our life was brought to us by countless other people equally dependant on roads for their existence.

Splitting hairs over what one believes to be their fair share is narcissism defined.

seeker333

Tell it to the guy who wrote it - I'm not interested in your opinions.

kickstart

Then why post it?

atbman

But it didn't

jgadamski

I also pay for other folks kids education, healthcare, ( and endless war, sorry) . It is part of the commons, Even if I never drive, I do rely on roads for getting my food to market, employees to work,etc.
What good does focusing on the cost of roads bring? We have been battling the mode war for as long as I recall, never resolved.
Suggestion? Live the best, happiest and most fulfilling life you can. And leave the bickering up to the petty folks. You have friends, community, and health.Not paying for a car allows that.

mconlonx

What's interesting is that there are those who want to take it out as much on other car drivers as cyclists. There are bills and proposed legislation regarding hybrid and electric cars to either tax them at a higher rate when registering or adding a fee. Because, like with bikes, they are accused of not paying their fair share, that they have found a loophole by which they don't contribute as much through gas taxes.

Which is stupid in the extreme. For one thing, as the article outlines, gas tax is only a portion of what everyone pays for road maintenance, and another, most hybrids/electrics are lighter-weight and smaller cars, doing less damage to the roads.

A fairer way to tax would be based on use, something like weight x miles traveled at some established rate. Of course the same people pushing for additional taxes and fees on hybrids and electrics would never go for that because they are the same people who drive gas guzzlers like full size pickup trucks...

In our state, when the current (anti-tax) governor came into office, he proposed a sales tax hike on bicycles for the same reasons -- road users not paying their fair share. Luckily, that got shot down right quick...

mr_bill

One caution - careful about people on bicycles not requiring road maintanence. We very much do - and we have to start *EXPECTING* road maintanence that serves US too.

Example - Beacon Street in Somerville MA is going through a full-depth reconstruction begining Spring 2016 through Fall 2018.

But there's been lots of prep ahead of the project.


Last fall, water main work down the center of the road. I'm riding in the remnants of the bike lane, now the left tire track of the travel lane.



This fall, after much additional utility work, lots of parallel cuts patched that would have failed this winter.
The condition of the road had deteriorated beyond VERY POOR.
It was going to be DANGEROUS to people on bicycles as those parallel cuts turned into parallel cracks covered by a bit of snow.



But this week the new temporary surface was laid down and is now getting paint.
They planned the temporary surface *SPECIFICALLY* to address the danger to people on bicycles.
(Although there is much rejoicing by people in cars about the new surface too.)


-mr. bill

corrado33

I hate this type of thinking. Everyone pays taxes. Where exactly those taxes go is not your concern, unless something foul is happening. (People in gov. jobs being paid far too much, etc.) We pay taxes to the government. The government decides what to do with those taxes. YOUR money doesn't go anywhere. You're paying the government for the good of the people. The government spends their money (presumably) to make the country a better place for its citizens.

Of course, if the argument was "cyclists still pay taxes for the roads" then... uh... continue on. I personally think the two tiered system is good in theory. Everyone pays for parts of the road in general taxes, and the people who drive vehicles on the road that cause damage pay more through gas taxes. Even if you aren't someone who drives, you still indirectly use the road for deliveries to you, your grocery store, etc.

Seems fair to me.