Report a Comment

“Roads are incredibly subsidized by tax dollars, as is general suburban living... that's not the "free market".
-----
Oh, boy. Here we going with the “roads are subsidized” canard.

As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States has been paidthrough user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments.

To a much lesser extent, they have also been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. That is, the portion of toll revenue that is left over after what's siphoned off to subsidize mass trainsit. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993, the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.

So yes, 70% of the cost of building the interstates - and most of those evil urban freeways - has been paid for by the user (drivers). The worst part is that their contribution would amount to nearly 90% if the money collected via the gas tax and tolls was fully used for road infrastucture rather than being cut to pay for mass transit.

Now, I ask you, how much of the construction of ANY mass transit system has been paid for via user fares?

You know what? The answer is zero. The DC Metro's yearly operating expenses are 54% subsidized on a yearly basis (according to WMATA); the billions it cost to build all come from someone else. That's not the case for roads and hasn't been for 60+ years.

And here's another fact (oh, those pesky facts!): 52% of the $6 billion cost of building the Metro Silver LIne Dulles rail developer's boondoggle is being raised by gouging Dulles Toll Road users (drivers!) with annually-increasing tolls. The one-way toll will be $4.50 by the end of next year.

The ridiculous slander on drivers is constantly being spread by folks obviously have no clue that on top of paying for 70% of all road construction in the US, drivers have paid for 100% of the cost of building mass transit - in addition to the PERPETUAL operating subsidies required to maintain and run it. And it is truly unfortunate that the people who are most likely to spread the "driving and roads are subsidized" nonsense are the very people who know the least about how transportation in the US is funded.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to be an adult and say thanks to drivers. And I certainly don't expect an apology for spreading misinformation.

As for the “subsidizing of suburbia”, it is true that the FHA and GI-financed mortgages that enabled the of the mid-late twentieth century and the mortgage tax deductions enabled the white flight from the cities and the subsequent large-scale development of the suburbs.

But keep in mind that market preferences for larger homes, more space, lower-cost housing, lower taxes, better schools, safer neighborhoods, and local government that works has driven that growth – and still does. Which gives the lie to your claim that the surburbs are “getting older and poorer” thanks to market preferences.

I know it’s tempting and fashionable to believe that the current preference for city life among young, trendy neo-urbanist hipsters is indicative of some huge paradigm shift, but it will never be more than what it is today: a niche market. Growing, yes, but a niche market all the same. When those hipsters grow up (and they will), they will have other priorities besides Metro access and walkability to the nearest bar.

by ceefer66 on Jul 10, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report