The Antiplanner

Save Us from Subsidized Highways!

8th July 2009

Save Us from Subsidized Highways!

posted in Follow up, Transportation |

The hearing that I testified at yesterday heard from five witnesses: four who supported transit as a “core climate solution” and one skeptic. I like to think we were about evenly matched.

My testimony focused on two points. First, despite increasing transit subsidies by 1250 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, transit travel has declined from 49 to 45 trips per urban resident and transit’s share of urban travel has declined from 4.0% to 1.6%. Second, even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025.

There were two interesting responses to my testimony. First, another witness said (and I’m quoting from memory), “All he did was divide total greenhouse gas emissions by passenger miles.” A reporter told me later that it sounded like he was questioning my methods, but his real argument was that more money spent on transit in combination with smart-growth land-use planning would lead to reduced auto driving.

I don’t believe that is true (and said so), but even if it were true: can you imagine AT&T (back when all phones were land lines) telling Congress, “We want you to restrict property rights, drive up housing prices, and prevent people from living in their preferred lifestyles so that we don’t have to extend our lines so far?” Or FedEx or UPS saying the same thing today? Why is transit so special that everyone else in the country has to completely rearrange their lives just for it?

You can say the answer is “climate change,” but transit agencies and smart-growth planners wanted to do all these things before climate was an issue. The truth is that transit is a declining but politically powerful industry, and part of its power comes from the fact that it is publicly owned and so elected officials have a vested interest in keeping it going.

In a very real sense, transit is just like the British coal, rail, and other nationalized industries in the 1960s: its main purpose is no longer transportation but to meet other political goals such as keeping transit workers employed and construction contracts going to transit builders. If transit were private, no one would argue that we have to make the world less convenient and more expensive for the 95 percent of people who travel by car so that it will be more convenient for the 1 or 2 percent who travel by transit.

The other response came from the subcommittee chair, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Apparently in response to my statement that we have given three-quarters of a trillion dollars in subsidies to transit since 1970, he said, “The last transportation bill included $200 billion for highways, and all of that was a subsidy.”

The Antiplanner opposes highway subsidies as much as transit subsidies. But in fact all of that $200 billion came from gas taxes and other taxes from highway uses — taxes that Congress created or dedicated to highways as user fees in 1956.

Are gas taxes a user fee? Or are they a subsidy to highway users? If they are a subsidy, then let’s just get rid of them. We have the technology today to pay for roads out of vehicle-mile fees or tolls. Let’s do it.

Better yet, just privatize the roads. Then users can take their choice: Do you want to drive on the road where 20 to 40 percent of your fee goes to subsidize transit? Or do you want to drive on the road where all of your fee goes to the roads you use? Unfortunately, with government ownership, we don’t get that choice.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Follow up, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 54 responses to “Save Us from Subsidized Highways!”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On July 8th, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    A reporter told me later that it sounded like he was questioning my methods, but his real argument was that more money spent on transit in combination with smart-growth land-use planning would lead to reduced auto driving.
    That is the real problem in this country:

    Idiot reporters.

    Without idiot reporters, idiot planners and idiot politicians would quickly be exposed instead of praised. And they would quickly achieve their proper place in society: holding a cardboard sign on a freeway on ramp.

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 4:18 am

  2. 2 On July 8th, 2009, bennett said:

    “And they would quickly achieve their proper place in society: holding a cardboard sign on a freeway on ramp.”

    Jim,

    As a highway advocate you should know that this will just add to congestion, and endanger the public safety and well-being. ;)

    Looks like someone is riled up today. Watch out!

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 6:44 am

  3. 3 On July 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    I don’t believe that is true (and said so), but even if it were true: can you imaging AT&T (back when all phones were land lines) telling Congress, “We want you to restrict property rights, drive up housing prices, and prevent people from living in their preferred lifestyles so that we don’t have to extend our lines so far?” Or FedEx or UPS saying the same thing today? Why is transit so special that everyone else in the country has to completely rearrange their lives just for it?

    This is why you won’t get play. It is great that your side was invited, but such hyperbole is patently and transparently false, and few believe it. The entire italicized is a series of false premises. You yourself have provided spreadsheets that clearly show that density is directly related to fewer VMT (reduced driving), and numerous times here I have shown leads to fewer TPD. The rest is simply ideological fear. If you want play, stop spouting falsehoods and stop using obvious ideological dog-whistle phrases as argumentation.

    DS

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 7:15 am

  4. 4 On July 8th, 2009, craig said:

    If you want play, stop spouting falsehoods and stop using obvious ideological dog-whistle phrases as argumentation.

    DS

    Do as I say, not as I do!

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 8:37 am

  5. 5 On July 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    craig beat me to it. The AP’s analogy was on point, and not hyperbole in the slightest. Dan, you did not comprehend that because yours is a concrete-based epistemology oriented toward pragmatism, not an objective epistemology derived from principle.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am

  6. 6 On July 8th, 2009, t g said:

    I agree with Randal that the Transit Lobby is more likely promoting a green agenda out of political expediency than out of a fundamental concern for climate change. Though one could argue Randal is doing the same.

    The real transit issue for the libertarian is not comparing the efficiency of cars and trains. It is, as we all know, about government’s role in the market.

    I have been wondering about the libertarians’ dream in which a household does not pay taxes, but pays user fees for services (tolls on roads, per call fees for police services, tuition for education). The libertarians want this to be universally applied. They want no one to pay taxes.

    This is rather unfair though. Just as the free market provides me the opportunity at many places for an all-inclusive fee (unlimited video rentals versus per unit, all inclusive vacations versus a la carte), I want an all-inclusive fee for utilities like roads and schools. I don’t mind paying taxes. My friends don’t mind paying taxes. It’s much easier than shopping around from school to school (or toll-road to toll-road) to find the least expensive.

    At first glance, it would seem that an opt-out system might accommodate a libertarian. I would get to pay taxes and have some bureaucrat make decisions for me (the nice thing about most bureaucrats is their lack of free-market ambition will keep them from rocking the government boat too much). The libertarian would get to forgo taxes and pay for only the services he wanted.

    The beauty of that would be, the government, no different than any corporation of voluntary members who pay membership dues, would have no reason not to abuse its competition, those free marketeers living on lawless, island properties. The government could dispose of nuclear waste along the perimeter of Mr. Libertarian’s six acre homestead and Mr. Libertarian would have little to no recourse.

    Oh, this alternate history mumbo jumbo is fun. Now I see why you guys like Ayn Rand so much!

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am

  7. 7 On July 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    Let us note that neither commenter above can provide a single falsehood written by me. Nor an ideological dog-whistle phrase (‘small-minority ideologues’ is not a dog-whistle phrase). Stating something doesn’t make it true. These assertions are almost worthy of calling bullsh–, but something else might be in the way.

    And this thing: Dan, you did not comprehend that because yours is a concrete-based epistemology oriented toward pragmatism, not an objective epistemology derived from principle not only surficially smacks of single-deity religions and fundamentalism ( “ours is the only truuuuue way of knowing!!!!!!!!”) but is a false premise. Dude – enroll in your local junior college and take a basic philosophy class. Sheesh.

    DS

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 9:51 am

  8. 8 On July 8th, 2009, hkelly1 said:

    I think Randal’s new moniker should be “The Autoplanner”… he doesn’t openly criticize the planning ordinances that lead to sprawl, which by its nature can only be served well by automobiles. He bashes anyone who wants to change these land-use rules, which are inherently NOT free market, by criticizing transit initiatives that tried to work with sprawl. He loves Houston, even though the few rules they do have just create more sprawl, which is best served by the car.

    Yes, Randal, the transit that tried to link distant strip malls with inefficiently designed cul-de-sac neighorhoods was fruitless, but only because the use-based zoning, low density targets, and provisions against mixed use and dense development created an environment that only the car could connect well. I am in agreement with you – that transit should never have been built and it was largely a waste.

    Now, people are trying to revoke the sprawl-inducing legal system that does not allow free choice for denser, urban environments, and insert another system in its place. You criticize them for planning, but planning is what got us to where we are now, and you seem to have no problem with that. It’s just ridiculous.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am

  9. 9 On July 8th, 2009, hkelly1 said:

    And I’m sure everyone on here will just criticize me and tell me that no one actually wants to build density in the free market. If that was going to be your comment, go here:

    http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/887662.html

    This developer is trying to build another new TND-type development in the exact same county that his first development is already a big success. Even though the first iteration is already complete, the county has thrown up barrier after barrier. Their answer “oh sure, make it a PUD”… only catch, you have to pay massive fees to do that! But if the same developer had come by with plans for single-family large-lot homes on cul-de-sacs, it would have gone through with a breeze, and no extra fees.

    So yes, the free market does really crave a mix of mixed-use and single-use development, of large-lot housing and dense urbanism, but unfortunately, the autoplanning of the 20th Century reigns supreme in the vast majority of the nation.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 10:33 am

  10. 10 On July 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    Mike: Dan, you did not comprehend that because yours is a concrete-based epistemology oriented toward pragmatism, not an objective epistemology derived from principle.

    Dan: [that] not only surficially smacks of single-deity religions and fundamentalism ( “ours is the only truuuuue way of knowing!!!!!!!!”) but is a false premise. Dude – enroll in your local junior college and take a basic philosophy class. Sheesh.

    Mike: Swing and a miss, Dan. You guessed wrong. That is not what the terms in my statement mean. Anyone else reading this who knows what they mean also knows that you whiffed. Wow. This is the equivalent of you being caught peeing in the pool at a party, and turning to the shocked and repulsed attendees and slurring, “What’re all you people doing here in my bathroom?!” Given your clear pro-education stance, perhaps YOU should learn more about philosophy before you expound.

    In further answer to your original statement (since my original answer that the AP’s analogy was valid answered your primary substantive “point,” and I’m being generous calling it that):

    Dan: This is why you won’t get play

    Mike: This statement is self-contradictory and irrelevant to the AP in any event. If his statement really won’t “get play,” then you don’t have to say it in order for it to be so. If his statement *will* get play, your saying it won’t get play is not going to change that outcome. This is typical social metaphysics from a person who is a clear statist and thus an adherent to the concept that social metaphysics can override objective metaphysics. Reality doesn’t work for you? “Reality is whatever we need it to be. Reality is the prevailing narrative. Perception is reality.” I’ve heard your underlying principle phrased many different ways, but at the core of it, you expect reality to bend to your whims, and THAT, sir, as you put it, is a “false premise.”

    There is an objective, knowable reality, and it is merciless. It will not let you evade it perpetually, and it will exact a debt upon you when the house of cards you have built finally collapses. You and your ilk gloriously carry the torch of Jim Taggart and Floyd Ferris and, for that matter, Barack Obama and George W. Bush alike.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am

  11. 11 On July 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    Mike, spare me your subjective certitude. Like I said, take a jr college class. And a human biology class. And a psych class. Maybe if your mind is open we’ll all get lucky and you’ll see the issues in the certitude and argumentation.

    But all your words don’t hide the fact that you implied above that I used falsehoods here, and you can’t back your claim. Are you full of sh–, or do you have evidence to back this implicit claim?

    DS

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am

  12. 12 On July 8th, 2009, msetty said:

    Mike: Dan, you did not comprehend that because yours is a concrete-based epistemology oriented toward pragmatism, not an objective epistemology derived from principle.

    This statement is empirical evidence of the absurdity of The Other Mike(tm)’s “objective epistemology derived from principle” that is, an utterly useless, impractical “philosophy” that remains permanently pristine, free from any changes resulting from actual results of its application. Like “Austrian economics” (sic).

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am

  13. 13 On July 8th, 2009, ws said:

    ROT:“Better yet, just privatize the roads. Then users can take their choice: Do you want to drive on the road where 20 to 40 percent of your fee goes to subsidize transit? Or do you want to drive on the road where all of your fee goes to the roads you use? Unfortunately, with government ownership, we don’t get that choice.”

    ws:20 to 40 percent of fees to mass transit? Since when, and I’d like to see some sources. Maybe in a select few instances.

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm

    More like 6%. At any rate, automobile user fees only cover 57% of highway funds. 18.77% from the general fund alone! You sure you weren’t referring to automobiles getting 20 to 40 percent of “magical” funding?

    And these stats are just for highways, not local streets and roads.

    Only roads that will be profitable can be privatized, which is really only in the high demand areas.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 11:58 am

  14. 14 On July 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    Dan: You provided that proof yourself. I quoted it. Scroll up to my previous message and you’ll see that. If you can’t comprehend that, that’s not my problem.

    msetty: Correctamundo. Objectivism is UTTERLY impractical. Pragmatism and practicality are completely irrelevant to Objectivism. Objectivism is concerned with doing what’s right, not with doing what’s easy. Justice, not convenience. Liberty, not security. It is the most radical philosophy ever invented in that it does not compromise one iota from its adherence to the knowable, measurable reality that anyone is free to recognize simply by ceasing evasions and discarding the illusions of whim.

    You thought you were delivering an insult, but what you really did was point out the fundamental underlying problem with every non-objective philosophy that exists today. Every other philosophy yields at least one iota to pragmatism, and once you’re unmoored from reality and dependent on the social metaphysics of pragmatism to make decisions, you’re a slave to any thug with a claim of need. Like a thug who wants to take your tax dollars and use them to pay for a train you’ll never ride, so he can get re-elected on a platform of being “green-friendly.” Or because it’s “for the children.” Or because it’s “for the betterment of the community.” None of those pragmatic reasons change the fact that my property was expropriated against my will by taxation, and my rights were violated thereby. Let private industry build the train at its own cost. If it meets my needs, I’ll pay to ride it. If not, not. If enough people ride it, it will turn a profit. If not, it will fail, and nobody’s rights will be violated. And before the Highwayman adds his usual canard: what I’m saying goes for roads too. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

    I am an Objectivist, and I am not practical. I don’t care how difficult or politically unpopular it is to do X. If X will protect individual rights and failure to do X will violate them, I will advocate X as the course of action, full stop. But today, people are afraid to imagine a black-and-white world. They fear confrontation and they fear a ruthless self-inventory. They seek to evade any truth that would say “no” to their wants and whims. They insist that all morality is relative; there are always shades of gray. I once thought so too. Reality taught me otherwise.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  15. 15 On July 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    One more note, as I forgot to close off my train of thought with it: There is an Objectivist saying that “the truth can withstand any amount of scrutiny.” I find that an invaluable rule of thumb when trying to evaluate the morality of a situation.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  16. 16 On July 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    Ouch: [killfile]

    DS

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  17. 17 On July 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    Nice evasion, Dan. You illustrated my final point superbly.

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  18. 18 On July 8th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Dear Autoplanner, again gas taxes are not user fees, they are taxes on gas.

    Some one driving an electric car is not buying gas!

    Expressways only make up 2% roads in the USA, roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.

    Also the road in front of your home serves an important value as a commons.

    If it were privatized, then what ever oligarchy corporation that owned it could charge you as much as they want for you exit or enter to your home.

    Autoplanner, just because you want to live in a private police state/open air prison, doesn’t mean that others want to do so!

    posted on July 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  19. 19 On July 9th, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    the highwayman said: Dear Autoplanner, again gas taxes are not user fees, they are taxes on gas.
    JK: I know this is a subtle concept and is difficult for a planner to grasp, but gas taxes are a practical approximation of a user fee. I know that this a very real world thing and thus difficult for utopian planners to grasp, but please try.

    the highwayman said: Some one driving an electric car is not buying gas!
    JK: So what? Just shows that it is not perfect. But you ignore that most road damage is done by transit buses and trucks. At least the trucks pay gas tax & other fees. Transit buses do not.

    the highwayman said: , roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.
    JK: The fedeal gas tax is distributed to cities and states as is the state tax distributed to cities. To say that roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes is simply car hater’s propaganda. Feel free to cite a credible source that shows “roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.” (Credible sources only please, with specific references to page and quote – any other references are simply a repeat of your long standing pattern of citing thousands of pages of irrelevant crap.)

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 2:25 am

  20. 20 On July 9th, 2009, craig said:

    Let us note that neither commenter above can provide a single falsehood written by me. Nor an ideological dog-whistle phrase (’small-minority ideologues’ is not a dog-whistle phrase). Stating something doesn’t make it true. These assertions are almost worthy of calling bullsh–, but something else might be in the way.
    ds
    —-

    I don’t feel like getting in to a pissing match with you.
    I leave for a couple weeks and it is the same old negative comments.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 6:16 am

  21. 21 On July 9th, 2009, bennett said:

    “Feel free to cite a credible source that shows “roads are mostly paid for by property & income taxes.”

    City of Austin Budget 2009 -2010 page# 311

    The Transportation Fund currently receives $8.5 million from the General Fund. Overall, the
    Transportation Fund is expected to have $46.1 million in total sources if funds for fiscal year
    2009. The Transportation Fund accounts for the operations and maintenance of the City of
    Austin’s Transportation network, including the following functions:
    • Street Preventative Maintenance
    • Street Repair
    • Bridge Maintenance
    • Traffic Controls
    • Planning

    So JK, notice that local roads are paid from through the general fund and that the functions of the transportation fund do not include transit. Call me when you come back from libertarian lala land (the place where all roads are funded by user fees).

    Here in Texas we don’t have income tax so streets can’t be paid for this way, but it is also why sales and property taxes are so high. Property and sales (not on fuel) taxes make up over half of the general fund in ATX which is what funds streets. So there you go.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am

  22. 22 On July 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    I don’t feel like getting in to a pissing match with you.

    Ah. I see. All I ask is evidence for your implicit claim above.

    Are you not able to back your claim? Was it a baseless assertion? Made up?False?No evidence?

    DS

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am

  23. 23 On July 9th, 2009, bennett said:

    p.s. In ’09 the FTA accounts for $2.8 million of the $46.1 mil. C.I.P grants make up a lot of the rest, often bond issues so chalk that one up to property taxes.

    Here is a dated (10 years :( ) link but shows a good breakdown on how ATX pays for streets/up keep. As you will see here are user fees, taxes, grants and so forth. A little bit to make everyone happy. A little bit to piss everyone off.

    http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/98/policy/pb_pwt.pdf

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 9:10 am

  24. 24 On July 9th, 2009, t g said:

    Bennet, what is this reality based epistemology you promote? Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts. We have a priori truth. When we ask for evidence, we don’t mean this tangible, empirical stuff, we mean arguments which follow from our premises. Bah to you and your so-called facts. [/sarcasm]

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am

  25. 25 On July 9th, 2009, Borealis said:

    It makes sense that some general revenue funds go towards roads. You usually can’t build a house or apartment without roads to bring in materials. The roadway holds all the utility corridors (cable, water, sewer, electric, phone). Fire, police and ambulance services all require road access.

    Moreover, even those who never ride in an automobile rely on roads to carry everything they buy to that little store in walking distance to their condo. So all that sales tax and income tax based on commerce rely on roads.

    The gas tax is probably one of the best user taxes we have, even though it is just a rough approximation of use. It is very cheap to collect, it varies by vehicle weight which approximates road wear, and its incentives to reduce gasoline use matches with public policy goals.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am

  26. 26 On July 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    t g, you obviously are a moron and because I forcefully say this from a basis of my objective philosophical and epistemological Liberty and impractical view, I am most obviously and objectively correct, as it is based in certitude and forcefulness of delivery and on terms that are most obvious because everyone here knows them thus remaining undefined and uncontextualized, except for the moron part which you most objectively are because I say so because you must be a planner based on my objective conclusion from these premises!! An’ sh–, beeeyotch.

    ——

    Nonetheless, objectively incorrect bennett reminds me that IIRC some time ago when I pointed out to the choir here that Houston actually had numerous land-use controls, I included a link to HOU’s PW department documents. And they had a similar fraction of road revenue, where local roads were subsidized by the General Fund, and also IIRC the reg’lur taxpayurz were subsidizing the traffic lights on the Interstate…

    DS

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am

  27. 27 On July 9th, 2009, Francis King said:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “My testimony focused on two points. First, despite increasing transit subsidies by 1250 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, transit travel has declined from 49 to 45 trips per urban resident and transit’s share of urban travel has declined from 4.0% to 1.6%. Second, even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025.”

    There is a major discrepancy between the first two sets of values – the number of trips remains the same per person, and yet the modal share is reduced by 2/3rds? There’s something odd going on here.

    Transit, if set up properly, with good yield management produces less CO2 emissions than cars. Yes, cars will become more energy efficient, but so will transit, using the same technology. In fact, most of the ‘modern’ propulsion technology in cars is tried out first in buses, since the extra cost is amortised over many more trips. This includes electric drive, hybrid ICE drive, and fuel cell hybrid drive. If you’re getting equal energy usage for transit and cars, it tells me that the transit isn’t set up properly.

    I agree with Antiplanner when he complains about the snobbish way some people in his country and mine insist on expensive rail transit, because after all other people are picking up the bill, and buses are just so beneath them – although there is definitely a role for light rail, particularly on dense and busy routes, and in pedestrian areas. But I’m not so convinced when he argues that cars and sprawl are the answer to anything. Many countries in the Middle East are fed up with sprawl and the traffic that goes with in, and they are systematically trying to increase the density of their urban areas, together with massive increases in transit. In Europe, the same thing is happening – sprawl is kept tightly under control by planning laws. You do have to wonder why they are doing this if sprawl is so good for them.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am

  28. 28 On July 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    You do have to wonder why they are doing this if sprawl is so good for them.

    You probably aren’t aware of how the knee-jerk Right wing reactions are delivered over here, but an expected reply in this country to your italicized would be something like “yeah, but it’s socialist sprawl, and ours is the sprawl of freedom!!!” or some such. That is about the level of our public discourse, as who wishes to formulate a reply to that. The level of higher discourse isn’t much better than your snobbish way some people in his country and mine insist on expensive rail transit, because after all other people are picking up the bill, and buses are just so beneath them

    DS

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am

  29. 29 On July 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Borealis said: It makes sense that some general revenue funds go towards roads. You usually can’t build a house or apartment without roads to bring in materials. The roadway holds all the utility corridors (cable, water, sewer, electric, phone). Fire, police and ambulance services all require road access.

    THWM: Roads have been around for thousands of years & have an important civic function.

    Though some how the loony libertarians want us to think that they are endangered.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  30. 30 On July 9th, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    bennett said: $8.5 million from the General Fund. Overall, the
    Transportation Fund is expected to have $46.1 million in total sources
    …
    So JK, notice that local roads are paid from through the general fund and that the functions of the transportation fund do not include transit.
    JK: Laughable.
    You show that 18% of road money comes from the general fund and claim that proof of “local roads are paid from through the general fund”

    How much of that $8.5 mil came from sale tax on gas, oil, accessories, licenses and sales of cars?

    It is a small amount to pay for roads that everyone uses (even transit.)

    That is about the same percentage of federal highway tax stolen for transit.

    YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  31. 31 On July 9th, 2009, t g said:

    Man One (Whispered aside): That big-bellied, balding man over there, is he okay or does he always hypervenilate like that?

    Man Two: Who? Ol Jim? That ain’t hyperventilatin, that’s oratin’.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  32. 32 On July 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    With your logic then sales taxes on shoes should count as a side walk user fee and sales taxes collected at restaurants should go towards big-ag.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  33. 33 On July 9th, 2009, Borealis said:

    Regarding Highwayman’s comment #32:

    A tax on shoes dedicated for sidewalk maintenance would make some sense as an approximate user fee, much like the excise tax on tires dedicated to highways. See Congressional Research Service report at https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/957/RL30302_20051006.pdf?sequence=1.

    Your second comment about sales tax on restaurants going to big ag indicates you don’t understand the concept of proxy user fees. How about you read the above paper on the topic, and then we can have an informed conversation?

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  34. 34 On July 9th, 2009, ws said:

    It shouldn’t be punitive to walk – it is the most basic, God given form of transportation. Therefore, there is not logical reason to tax people to be able to walk. Knowing the ability of cars and even transit to take away pedestrianism (i.e. make it unsafe and often dangerous), it is only fair to provide a safe and dedicated lane or ROW separated from autos such as a sidewalk.

    Only an extreme nutjob would want to tax shoes to fund walking amenities. This is something that can be absorbed by all.

    That is the case for streets being public. We should design streets for all modes of transportation. Arterial streets can be given special design considerations for cars. However, local streets should be safe, add aesthetics to the community, be environmentally conscious (i.e. stormwater management), and all users be given an opportunity to use them due to their public nature. We should not design streets to “cater” only to one mode of transportation.

    I consider arterials and highways to be roads, and should be subject to slightly different funding, maintenance, and user needs.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

  35. 35 On July 9th, 2009, ws said:

    JK:“That is about the same percentage of federal highway tax stolen for transit.”

    ws: Mass transit does not receive that much in “stolen money”. Even so, highways user fees only cover 57% of costs of highways alone, excluding local streets and roads:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm

    I see transit getting a paltry 6.28%

    YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN, KARLOCK!

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

  36. 36 On July 9th, 2009, Frank said:

    Ok. Here’s the score so far:

    There are a dozen commenters on this post making 34 posts.

    So far, Dan leads with seven posts. (No surprise there.)

    Not far behind is Mike with five. Would you two get a fucking room already?

    The rest are the usual AP commenters. The Highway Man made three comments and tied with four other commenters for third place; undoubtedly these comments were full of grammatical errors and random ramblings of an uneducated old man.

    The rest are the same fuckers you see on here all the time.

    It would be nice to have a profile page for these assholes so I can keep them all straight.

    Oh, and here’s a little tidbit: Mike and Dan, you’re never going to convince the other. That goes for the rest of you.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm

  37. 37 On July 9th, 2009, Frank said:

    I could have ended Shatneresue with a “Get a life!” thrown in, but as I’m sure most of you surmised, Dan would just call me out for living in my mom’s basement, so I held that back.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  38. 38 On July 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    How many of my comments, Frank, were to ask for evidence for false accusations from hapless ideologues…er…reg’lur commenters?

    So, Frank, why don’t you count those requests for evidence of bullsh–, then divide from the total, then repost the new total/compared % in a reply?

    I won’t count this reply as evidence for bullsh–, because it is obvious you are, like, hella smart dude and wouldn’t, like, do that, right? I even bolded some passages to make it easy for your objective genius to shine.

    DS

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

  39. 39 On July 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Dude take it easy, it’s not as if O’Toole(or Cox) have real jobs & have to work for living!

    He’s not paying for this blog, the oligarchs are.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  40. 40 On July 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    ws said: YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN, KARLOCK!

    WS, is right. Karlock, quit being such a hater.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

  41. 41 On July 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Though Frank, an other good place to see hot fresh fascist bullshit on transportation is Cox’s Transport Policy list.

    http://www.pubicpurpose.com/ut-group.htm

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

  42. 42 On July 9th, 2009, bennett said:

    JK,

    You should read closely and look at the links. 0% of the money in the COA General Fund comes from gas taxes. There are some user fees, mostly associated with heavy load trucks but the are minor in terms of the larger budget. If you would read carefully as opposed to getting all riled up before you finish reading a comment you would have realized that a whole bunch of ATX’s road/street funding comes from CIP fundraising through bond issues (i.e property taxes).

    I don’t know why your so mad. You asked for an example and I gave you one. I don’t oppose the gas tax as a road user fee but you have to realize that not all roads are paid for this way. I’m not a car hater. I’m not a transit hater either. I just don’t understand how you can claim that all roads are paid for through user fees. I mean most are, but only partly. Every common, every public space is subsidized to some extent. Streets are not an exception. And almost all local roads and streets, arterial and feeders, in TX and CO, to my knowledge, are heavily subsidized. To me this is a good thing. I see the utility of roads/streets as a public good that we should all chip in a pay for, but I would say the same for transit. I can go on and on about historical context, and how roads, and highways in particular, have been given an unfair advantage but I don’t want to piss you off. I just wanted to give you the example you asked for, cited, with numbers, links, and references, but you refuse to look into it carefully because you don’t want to believe it can be true that roads are subsidized… Sometimes heavily. I don’t know what else I can do but implore that you READ the whole comment before you form your retort.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  43. 43 On July 9th, 2009, ws said:

    bennett:

    Karlock doesn’t want to admit that automobile use in the US is not exactly the bastion of libertarianism that it superficially appears to be. He’s just angry, and slowly realizing the entire transportation system in the US needs restructuring.

    posted on July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  44. 44 On July 10th, 2009, Borealis said:

    Regarding comment # 36, I agree with the overall sentiment. There is a lot of name calling and people trying to get in the last word. I would hope people would try to be more civil, and if nothing else, just ignore the Trolls’ comments that are trying to get people upset. This is a specialized blog and I would hope the comments would be very intelligent and inform the rest of us, not just name calling and Trolls who want to set off flare wars.

    Regarding comment #34, which stated “It shouldn’t be punitive to walk – it is the most basic, God given form of transportation. Therefore, there is not logical reason to tax people to be able to walk.”

    Philosophically, I can see and agree your argument. It likewise shouldn’t be punative to buy food, live in a home, marry, give birth, drink water, call 911, create sewage, exhale CO2, or die. Taxes are already in place or proposed for all those activities. The strong libertarian philosophy that some government functions should be paid for by their users would suggest that a sidewalk tax on people who buy shoes makes more sense than many other taxes. I am more a moderate and think that would be silly because it takes proxy user taxes concept to the extreme, and the whole point of proxy user taxes is to find a reasonable middle ground for user fees.

    posted on July 10th, 2009 at 5:06 am

  45. 45 On July 10th, 2009, bennett said:

    Frank said: Ok. Here’s the score so far:
    There are a dozen commenters on this post making 34 posts.
    So far, Dan leads with seven posts. (No surprise there.)
    Not far behind is Mike with five. Would you two get a fucking room already?
    The rest are the usual AP commenters. The Highway Man made three comments and tied with four other commenters for third place; undoubtedly these comments were full of grammatical errors and random ramblings of an uneducated old man.
    The rest are the same fuckers you see on here all the time.
    It would be nice to have a profile page for these assholes so I can keep them all straight.
    Oh, and here’s a little tidbit: Mike and Dan, you’re never going to convince the other. That goes for the rest of you.

    Me: I guess I don’t understand why you participate in this blog. It’s a lively discussion. Sometimes it gets personal. The grammar aint perfect. It’s a blog! What do you expect? If you hate it so much and only see the futile aspects of it, why participate? Plus, I believe that the AP would like to keep the profanity to a minimum. So tone it down Frank.

    posted on July 10th, 2009 at 6:31 am

  46. 46 On July 10th, 2009, Frank said:

    Fuck off bennett :)

    posted on July 10th, 2009 at 7:09 am

  47. 47 On July 11th, 2009, Francis King said:

    Charmed, I’m sure.

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 4:01 am

  48. 48 On July 11th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Save Us from Subsidized Parking!

    It’s from Canada, though there similar planning aspects with the USA.

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/fp/There+free+parking/1747249/story.html

    Business

    There is no free parking

    By Stuart Donavan and David Seymour, Frontier Centre for Public Policy June 30, 2009

    Municipal regulations require that urban developments provide on-site parking.

    These regulations seem innocuous and receive little attention in public-policy discussions, but they do in fact have serious consequences. They stimulate urban sprawl, encourage excessive use of cars, create inequitable social outcomes, reduce housing affordability and suppress economic development.

    Wiping parking regulations from municipal planning codes across Canada is arguably the most urgent policy reform Canada’s municipalities can make.

    In the middle of the last century, transport engineers focused on delivering free-flowing car travel. Parking regulations required developers to set aside a portion of their property for parking to ensure that drivers looking for parking spaces did not create undue congestion and delay other road users.

    Parking regulations are politically palatable because they improve driver convenience by including the cost of parking in the overall cost of development. This is indeed the root of the problem – parking is not free; the cost is merely hidden.

    Today, 90 per cent of private vehicle trips in North America end in a “free” parking space. It is not free, however, when one considers the valuable urban land used to provide it.

    Municipal parking regulations are extremely land intensive and very costly as a result. Developers who build banquet halls in Richmond, B.C., for example, are required to provide up to four square metres of parking for every metre of hirable banquet space. The result is that everyone pays more for banquet space.

    The cost of parking can be substantial. The Toronto Parking Authority estimated that the cost of providing a single parking space could be up to $40,000. U.S. researchers estimated that parking subsidies are several times the price of gas used by cars.

    Perhaps the most insidious characteristic of parking regulations is their self-reinforcing nature that progressively molds the urban landscape into a gigantic parking lot. By taking up land, parking spots reduce density and make car travel more appealing, which leads to – surprise, surprise – greater demand for parking.

    In these ways parking regulations have contributed to more, rather than less, congestion. As with many public policies, the effect of minimum-parking regulations varies depending upon income.

    These regulations almost certainly steal from the poor and give to the rich. A low-income earner is likely to spend a larger portion of this money on basic goods and services that build in the cost of parking. Supermarkets, for example, recoup the cost of parking in their grocery prices. Low-income earners are more likely to carpool, use public transit, walk or cycle, so they are less likely to benefit from the parking they are forced to subsidize.

    The cost of higher density housing is inflated by parking regulations. Because the cost of parking is built in to the cost of other goods, people are less likely to make use of alternatives to the drive-and-park lifestyle.

    Car pooling, public transit, telecommuting, car sharing and online shopping reduce the demand for parking, but consumers have no incentive to choose these options because the cost of parking is built in regardless.

    One scholar called minimum-parking regulations a “disastrous substitute for millions of individual decisions . . . about how much a parking space is worth.”

    In aggregate, parking regulations amount to a vast misdirection of economic resources. Unlike many deregulation initiatives, the removal of minimum-parking regulations does not need to be sudden or disruptive. If parking regulations were removed today, Canada’s urban areas would adapt slowly over years with new developments having only small impacts on the overall demand for parking.

    Instead of regulating the supply of parking, municipalities would need to shift focus to managing demand for parking, which they can do through the use of time-limits and ultimately prices.

    A deregulated parking supply is crucial to ensuring that Canada’s urban areas are able to tackle current economic and environmental challenges. If Canada’s planners are truly committed to economic growth, sustainability and livable communities, they should first focus on making sure existing regulations do not surreptitiously undermine these urban objectives.

    It is time we realized parking is not free and instead implemented simple regulatory reforms that allow developers, businesses and consumers to manage their demand for parking in a more effective manner.

    Stuart Donavan is the author of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy report How Free is Your Parking?

    David Seymour is senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 10:13 am

  49. 49 On July 11th, 2009, ws said:

    What I find perplexing that for all of the anti-regulation papers that ROT and Cox have written, I have never seen an article that talks about parking regulations and its effect on housing affordability and transportation choice at length.

    If the Antiplanner was such a “free market” guy, why is there no lengthy discussion of the other side’s (planners, New Urbanists) sentiments towards regulation and the built environment?

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 11:06 am

  50. 50 On July 11th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Houston, we have a problem. Though WS, you made a good point with post #43.

    “Karlock doesn’t want to admit that automobile use in the US is not exactly the bastion of libertarianism that it superficially appears to be. He’s just angry, and slowly realizing the entire transportation system in the US needs restructuring.”

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  51. 51 On July 11th, 2009, Borealis said:

    I am all in favor of relaxing the parking requirements. Businesses should be able to build a store with minimal parking and see what happens in the market place. Certainly one of those downtown businesses with minimal parking will be more economical and beat a store that overbuilds parking spaces, such as Wal-Mart.

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

  52. 52 On July 11th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Then Wal-Mart will have to initiate a cover charge.

    posted on July 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  53. 53 On July 12th, 2009, Francis King said:

    I think parking is more complicated than this.

    Experience in the UK has been decidedly mixed.

    Setting maximum parking works well on usages like offices, where the employee is obliged to turn up, and if there is no parking space for them, they have to find some other way of getting to work. The management decides who gets a parking space, and who doesn’t. Since offices are very dense trip generators (approx one person or car per 20m2 in a high-rise tower block), removing parking spaces at the office is a good way of reducing car trips, and preventing congestion.

    Setting maximum parking does not work on housing. Unless the reasons for buying cars are removed, people have the same number of cars, whether or not they have a parking space. Cars end up parked on the kerb, on grass verges, on the footway itself, at junctions, etc. This causes safety problems. Which is why one council is going back to minimum parking for housing. Each house will have to have enough parking for every car.

    The amount of parking that retail requires depends on the nature of the shops. Many shops benefit from being pedestrianised – footfall is increased in a pedestrian area. Supermarkets, though, require good car access. Where car parking is provided outside of local shops, it needs to be restricted to a maximum stay of one hour, to allow for turnover.

    posted on July 12th, 2009 at 12:55 am

  54. 54 On July 12th, 2009, prk166 said:

    It would be nice to see more roads privatized.

    posted on July 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.