Report a Comment

"It is impossible (for practical purposes) to allocate infrastructure costs to users."

I think this is where we disagree. Everything else is a semantics issue. It is absolutely possible, and increasingly practical at that. If you incorporate, say, a mileage surcharge into goods and services, you allocate infrastructure (and environmental externality) costs to users. This doesn't harm business or benefit economies of scale, it simply encourages appropriate consumption patterns. As it stands, while I may eat lettuce and carrots grown thousands of miles away, I might redistribute my spending habits if they were more expensive relative to plants grown hundreds of miles away.

The roadblock to this is political; it is easy enough to pass on costs that can be deferred, and it is easy enough to outsource pollution to regions with lax emissions standards (China sticks out). The Tragedy of the Commons. I don't see an attempt to implement a "fair usage tax" or whatever as regressive or anti trade, but I do see it as more equitable to end users who have adopted or otherwise maintain a low impact lifestyles, consciously or not. I also think it would do a lot to encourage entrepreneurship at the local level, as new businesses emerge to capitalize on local demand as of yet unmet.

As for your Belgian example, zero fare systems are obviously not free (which you acknowledge). Many of them are supported by high gas taxes (or usage surcharges) that reflect the negative impact driving has on government spending, and seek to reward users who effectively "save" the government money in the form of decreased pollution costs and infrastructure maintenance. But other, more elaborate schemes have been devised in the past, such as pass systems paid for by neighborhoods and employers to link communities with job centers. Or (to cite a wiki entry) shuttle services provided by universities. Universities save on parking (we can turn that parking lot into a dorm), maintenance, etc., and communities benefit from increased connectivity to a university (and all the students' disposable income). In both cases, a decision was made that facilitated the passing of infrastructure costs to users. No more free parking at universities (we have a shuttle bus!), no more need for that long commute (I save all this money if I live in town!).

I guess would think about it this way. 98 percent of Maryland will never, ever, travel to new development X in Hagerstown. Why is everyone paying for all the new roads being laid down to support it? Shouldn't a decision to move far away incur a cost that reflects all that added spending? This is certainly applicable to consumption patterns as well

But seriously though, otherwise, you are on point. Infrastructure enables modern society. Subsidizing it as if all roads[*] are arterial to society does not.

by JTS on Mar 10, 2009 11:19 am • link • report