ndbiker

That is in essence what happened when gas went to over $4/gallon. The problem is behavior modification works. If you raise the taxes to inhibit driving, people drive less which reduces your tax base. Nearly all mass transit systems are tax subsidized. When gas went to over $4 per gallon many transit systems found that they were overflowing with riders but losing money as revenues plummeted. Large cities for the most part can sustain their mass transit sytems. Mid size cities (most of the cities in the US) can't support the cost of a local mass transit system (except for bus service).

As far a US tax, why? Shouldn't it be done at the local level. Why do I want someone in New York to pay for mass transit in Ohio. We have a private mass transit system which works quite well over the distances we cover in our United States, the airlines. We have trains where they make sense, in heavily populated New England. If the cost of gas goes up high enough governments will have to figure out ways to pay for mass transit, but I fear gas taxes would not do the job.

Roody

What is it about the airlines that works so well?

The financial health of the airlines? The carbon emissions? The friendly on-time service? The convenience of airport locations? Or do you most enjoy stripping in front of strangers and paying $8 for a cheeseburger?

Many trips between cities would be better served with high-speed and low-pollution trains.

As for paying for mass transit--one partial solution would be to charge passengers more, whether for buses, trains or air travel. Let people subsidize their own wanderlust for a change. And I'm not saying that all government subsidies should be eliminated. But we should look at charging more for fares--at the same time as we increase costs to auto users through higher taxes and/or more tolls.

ericy

Airlines are really only financially viable when oil is < $100/bbl. Oil is becoming more and more scarce as time goes on, so prices I wouldn't expect prices to stay below that point forever.

KurtAV

Cities and other governmental entities have a virtual monopoly on mass transit in the U.S., so casitigating capitalism for failing to provide those things is kind of silly. Government regulations and NIMBYism are just two examples of barriers to entry by the private sector into the mass transit business that come immediately to mind. Public-funded subsidies to exisiting systems are also a huge impediment to privately funded competition for the public systems.

Even with huge barriers to entry to the mass transit business, there are some great examples of non-subsidized, private mass transit systems in the U.S. Vanpools run by companies like VPSI work very well for many people. I rode in those and on a private bus to and from New Orleans for over 8 years. It was faster, cleaner, more convenient, and cheaper than most subsidized public systems. The slugging system in and around DC is another example of private enterprise filling a need better than the public sector can. People line up at known slug centers and are picked up by people who want extra riders so they can use the HOV lanes. Slugs get free transport, drivers save time, and there are fewer cars on the road; everybody wins.

Fares went up when Britain privatized rail systems? Of course: The government was no longer taking money from everyone to pay for a service that only some used. What happened to the total cost of the service on a per passenger mile basis after privitization? If it was done well, I bet it went down.

wahoonc

HUH? Do you realize how much tax money is spent for the FAA, subsidies for airports, bailout of the airlines after 9/11? Other than walking there is NO form of transit in the US that is not subsidized in some form or another. FWIW the current plan for the FAA Re-authorization Act of 2009 is around $70 BILLION dollars...private my sweet ass! Want to guess how much rail we could subsidize for that? Amtrak is only getting $1.5 billion by comparison.

Aaron

KurtAV

Except cars.

Air looks pretty good too on a per passenger mile basis when you look at it objectively.

busted knuckles

I call that Friday night.

bragi

What? You think cars aren't subsidized? Building and maintaining car infrastructure is probably the most heavily subsidized transportation expense there is. Even the Interstate Highway System, the roads most heavily funded by user fees (i.e., fuel taxes) are heavily subsidized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...stem#Financing

Other roads are even more heavily subsidized by non-users. What on Earth makes you imagine that the car infrastructure that we've managed to build for ourselves would even be possible without a heavy infusion of capital from the state? It's socialism, pure and simple.

KurtAV

I maybe should have qualified that a bit (but then it wouldn't have been as witty and pithy as it was). I was really really writing about funding at the federal level and at the current time. Currently, at the federal level, net subsidies for highways are negative. That is, more revenue is taken in through fuel taxes than is spent on highways. Much more; fuel taxes fund all sorts of other things.

I imagine that road/highway funding at the state level varies quite a bit, but I know that in many states fuel taxes are as nearly as much to more than the federal tax. I'd be very surprised if those taxes didn't cover, in very large part, most state spending on highways and roads.

Here's an interesting article on this very subject that's written by someone who says he's an "ardent cyclist". Content warning: This article is clearly written from the libertarian point of view; it may not be suitable for children, socialists, and others with tender sensibilities. According to the article:

• "The Interstate Highway System was built without a dime of subsidy, being funded entirely with gas taxes and other highway-user fees;
• For the last 60 years virtually no federal money and very little state money other than highway-user fees have been spent on any highways or roads;
• Cities and counties, however, do spend property, income, and sales taxes subsidizing new local roads and street maintenance;
• But these subsidies are partly offset by diversions of federal and state highway-user fees to mass transit and other nonhighway programs;
• Bottom line: user fees cover nearly 90 percent of the total amount spent on highway construction, maintenance, and operations."

If the author has his facts straight, and he seems to, cars are the least subsidized form of transportation in the US.

fotooutdoors

While cars may be the least subsidized in terms of monies paid from the government for infrastructure projects, we have to consider the whole cost to society of any form of transportation. I can't claim to be an expert in this area, but I do know that there are many externalized costs to anything that uses energy; the impact on the environment affects our collective health and the long-term health of our planet. Depending on the economist and what all they include, the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline to society (purchase price + cost of mitigation of impacts caused by said gallon of gas) is said to be somewhere between $20 and $60 (I will try to find the source of these numbers for you if interested-they came from some readings I did in one of my college classes).

Of course, this doesn't just affect cars, but the externalized costs are proportional to how much fuel a vehicle uses. Air transport, under this model, is hugely subsidized as well (more than almost any car/truck/SUV), while an energy-efficient form of transportation such as rail, is much less.

Of course, if all you care about is your cost/savings, these numbers don't really matter. I trust though, that those frequenting this forum care about a wider variety of issues than would the average, short-sighted consumer.

Roody

lol. you are quite the provocateur.

Besides what Bragi said about road taxes paid by non-users, there's the matter of two wars plus all the money spent defending the Saudis, the conflict with Iran, etc., etc. Although these conflicts weren't entirely about oil, few people doubt that the US would have less interest in that region if they weren't sitting on the last big pool of cheap oil.

We all pay the costs of health problems due to cars--especially respiratory problems from the pollution and the costs of auto accidents--in the form of higher insurance premiums and Medicare costs. Groceries and other goods are more expensive because stores provide "free" parking, and municipalities often subsidize parking in commercial areas. Driver education is an expense at all levels of government. People spend countless productive hours stuck in traffic--I don't remember the cost of this but it was in the billions. Somebody is paying for that lost productivity.

Global warming will end up being the most expensive catastrophe in human history. Very roughly, about 25 % of the blame for this probably goes to petroleum powered vehicles.

I could go on and on, but maybe (doubt it) you get the idea.

However, before I get too far afield, I remember that although transportation is very expensive, it provides immeasurable benefits to people by making possible commerce and other vital human activities. The car in particular has brought great blessings to the world.

However, many of us believe that the time of the auto is past. For many reasons, we need to phase out internal combustion engines. If nothing can be found to take their place, we may need to phase out all cars eventually.

AsanaCycles

something from Modest Mouse


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_heR2ekoxI


Out of gas
Out of road
Out of car
I don't know how I'm going to go and
I had a drink the other day
Opinions were like kittens
I was giving them away and
I had a drink the other day
I had a lot to say
And I said
You will come down soon too
You will come down too soon

You will come down soon too
You will come down, you'll come down, come down

You will come down soon too
You will come down too soon

You will come down soon too
Soon enough, you will come down , come down

Out of gas
Out of road
Out of car
I don't know how I'm going to go and
I had a drink the other day
Opinions were like kittens
I was giving them away and
I had a drink the other day
I had a lot to say
And I said
You will come down soon too
You will come down too soon

You will come down soon too
Soon enough, you will come down , come down

You will come down soon too
You will come down too soon

You'll come down, come down

You'll come down, come down

Booger1

For the price of insurance and registration in California,let alone gas and maintaining the car,I could buy a new $1500.00 bike every year if I wanted.

Robert C

Insurance and registration, in California, for my motorcycle last year was $260. For my wife's car they come up to about $600.

Further, Insurance and Licensing are the last two auto expenses to go. Many people who are car lite will keep the car, and these two expenses, for the occasional trip that is outlandishly difficult any other way.

AsanaCycles

once upon a time, i had an 82' Subaru wagon that i bought for $500, insured thru Viking Insurance
i about blew a gasket when my insurance went up to $36/mo on average.
before that it was $31/mo

they'd only take a 6 month payment
i tried for annual payments, but no luck...

bragi

I looked around a bit, and could find nothing that indicates that Federal subsidies to the highway system are negative. Do you have a link to some user-friendly site that can confirm this?

Many of the claims in the article you cited can be flatly contradicted by a quick search. For example, the claim that nearly 90% of the total amount of money spent on highway construction, maintenance and operations is simply not true. User fees do pay for a majority of federal, state and even some county roads, but it's a lot closer to 60% than 90%. 40% still comes from sources other than fuel taxes, that is, property, sales, and income taxes.

Personally, I don't have a problem with these taxes, because all of us benefit from roads, and I'm willing to pay my share, but I also expect other road users to understand that I help to foot the bill, too, even though I don't own a car.

On a related note, here's a link to a point of view that I thought was pretty reasonable:

https://www.planetizen.com/node/35075

Finally, I have to side with Roody and say something about keeping things in perspective. For example, Congress recently approved $13 billion for Amtrak over the next five years. In 2008, Amtrak moved about 10 million people. That amounts to a $250.00 per passenger rail subsidy on the part of the Federal government, which is outrageous. However, the Feds spent a similar amount on air travel per passenger, even more if you count Homeland Security costs. I couldn't find enough data to figure out the Federal subsidy per car driver. All I can say is that 54% of all DOT expenses are devoted to highways. Transportation subsidies of any kind, however, pale in comparison to the costs of the war in Iraq, an effort that doesn't really add much value to our economy as a whole or our balance sheet as a nation. 830 billion dollars is the best figure I can find for this war, which, if my math is right, would fund a bloated and inefficient, yet still very useful, Amtrak for 319 years. If you're going to throw money down a rathole, you might as well use it to move people, rather than getting working class boys killed for no particular reason.

KurtAV

The link was in my post from the 17th. Here it is again.

Roody

"The current analysis reflects federal revenue and expenditure data only. An analysis
including state and local revenue and expenditure data may show different results and
would raise different issues of revenue and expenditure definition."

KurtAV

Yes, that report concerns only federal highway spending. There is some state/local info in the article I linked to. Here's the money quote on state subsidies:

KurtAV

I've read that article now. Almost all the numbers he cites come from the U.S. DOT annual "Highway Statistics" report from 2004. So unless 2004 was anomolous or the guy made a mistake or he's a liar, I'd guess his figures are accurate.

Where are you getting the 60-40 numbers from?

Torrilin

The 6 month payment thing is because in most states it's *against the law* to sell car insurance for more than 6 months at a time. I have no idea why, and find it infuriating. Bad enough that I have to pay through the nose... I can't even get it over with at registration time.

rbrian

The private companies are still subsidised by the taxpayer - the cost is about the same as having a state-owned system. There are 3 main effects:

- the guard's van has all but disappeared, meaning bikes have to booked in advance, and are sometimes refused anyway.

- the system is so fragmented that there is usually a much longer wait for connections than there used to be. Although it is possible to book a ticket for a long journey, valid on all the different trains you will be travelling on, it is not possible to book bike tickets (which didn't used to be necessary) at the same time. This has to be done with each individual company.

- the directors of the train companies are very rich.

It was not good value for money, but not a lot is in Britain.

Schwinnhund

This is not a realistic record of your car cost. Unless you drive less than 4 miles to work, you spend more money than that on gas and oil. No repairs? I just had to have the struts replaced on my van, some brake work, and new tires, and it cost $1200.00. What about tags, parking, depreciation, and the impact to the environment? What about the dangers of operating a motor vehicle?

There is no way that a bicycle would not be an improvement. The only thing cars have going for them is speed and convienience. I am a musician, and have to haul lots of heavy equipment around when I go to gigs. But that's about all I use my cars for. That, and long-distance travel.

KurtAV

If the private companies are being subsidized, that's not a privitization at all. More like the 1920s/1930s Italian corporatism (a chosen few companies in bed with the government).

Roody

I thought Mussolini made the trains run on time?