The Antiplanner and Charles Marohn, of the Strong Towns blog, agreed to have an interblog debate of the question, “Did federal highway funding influence urban form?” Yesterday, the Antiplanner argued that urban form was rapidly changing — that is, the suburbs were growing and central cities declining — long before Congress created the Interstate Highway System, which was the first significant federal funding for urban roads. (Prior to 1956, almost all federal highway funding went to rural roads.) By the time federally funded urban highways opened for business in around 1970 or so, the suburbs already had swamped the central cities.
The case made by Mr. Marohn, however, focuses on a different question: are federal highways subsidized? “The highway trust fund is insolvent and we are financing much of our highway improvements through debt,” he notes. Even in his reply to my argument, he focuses on subsidies, saying, “In 2007, only 72% of the cost of construction and maintenance was covered by user fees.”
If the Antiplanner had known that subsidies, and not urban form, were the subject of the debate, I would have made a very different argument. First, I would have pointed out that the all the highways built from 1931 through about 1980 were funded almost 100 percent by gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. It was only when Congress and the states began diverting those user fees to transit and other purposes that highway departments had to look for non-user-fee sources of revenue.
Keep Lappy Away from Your cheapest cialis australia Lap This might surpise you, but laptop is one of the major culprit or reason behind creating chronic muscle tension. In addition, it will also damage his relationship with his partner. generic cialis pharmacy Pain often come with bloating, nausea tadalafil professional or vomiting, burning sensation and occurs after unhealthy food combinations of protein, fat, starch, sugar products’ together or drinking of alcohol. People with chronic tension-type headache may also occurs cialis generika 5mg during these types of injuries. Second, I would have pointed out that subsidies to roads even today remain slight when measured on a per-passenger-mile basis. Some $33 billion in subsidies supported 4.57 trillion passenger miles in 2007, for a subsidy of just 0.7 cents per passenger mile. (I calculate the subsidies by subtracting the diversions from user fees — $10.8 billion for transit and $11.7 billion for other purposes — from the general funds going for highways — $55.6 billion.) Considering that transit subsidies are roughly 100 times greater and are having much of an influence on urban form, I doubt anyone could say that two-thirds of a penny per passenger mile has done much to boost the suburbs.
Third, I would have pointed out that almost all of the subsidies are at the local level, not the federal or state levels. (From the same table, the feds spent $2.2 billion in general funds on roads but diverted $7.4 billion in user fees to non-roads; the states spent $17.9 billion in general funds on roads but diverted $14.1 billion of user fees to non-roads.) Non-existent federal subsidies can have no influence on urban form.
Fourth, the highway trust fund is insolvent only because Congress deliberately spent more than anticipated revenues so that it could fund its pork-fest on light rail, bridges to nowhere, and similar ridiculous projects. The fact that Congress is irresponsible has nothing to do with whether highways are subsidized or federal roads influenced urban form.
Opponents of the suburbs use claims of road subsidies to argue in favor of land-use regulation and transit subsidies. The Antiplanner says we should just get rid of all subsidies and let cities grow the way they want to grow.
ROT:“First, I would have pointed out that the all the highways built from 1931 through about 1980 were funded almost 100 percent by gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. It was only when Congress and the states began diverting those user fees to transit and other purposes that highway departments had to look for non-user-fee sources of revenue.”
ws: You’re assuming that the funds have been pilfered by transit and that’s why the HTF is in the red, which is just a scapegoat because it receives a few pennies to the dollar. The real issue is that “user fees” would never cover the entire costs because maintenance was and has not been a huge priority to most DOT people. Most of the infrastructure was new from your 1930-1980 time-frame reference, so of course user fees covered that cost.
It’s easy to say everything was paid for because maintenance wasn’t that big of a deal when most of the highways are relatively new. Now it’s a huge issue compounded by even more deferred maintenance.
We gambled on new growth without any way to pay for maintaining that growth. User-fees aren’t ever going to cover these costs now or even in the future.
WS, there is also the bonus irony of a some one that calls them self a “libertarian”(Mr.O’Toole) to defend government economic intervention.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> By the time federally funded urban highways opened for business
> in around 1970 or so, the suburbs already had swamped the
> central cities.
The District of Columbia never completed its urban Interstate network, diverting between $2 billion and $3 billion from its allocation of federal highway dollars to build (part) of the Metrorail system instead.
Not that it mattered – the population of the District crashed from its 1950 peak anyway, with large growth in the three large counties that make up the “Beltway” suburbs.
We lived in the burbs outside of Portland in 1957, long before most of the modern freeways were built around Portland.
We were not alone. It was great, open space to play, most of our neighbors had vegetable gardens and plenty of room for pets.
My dad worked downtown and it took about 10 minutes to get there.
If the gas tax had risen with inflation (whether on an escalator, or being a percentage sales tax), instead of being fixed, then user fees could easily cover the entire costs.
John Thacker:“If the gas tax had risen with inflation (whether on an escalator, or being a percentage sales tax), instead of being fixed, then user fees could easily cover the entire costs.”
ws:Raising the gas tax is the third rail of politics. Even though we should literally be building more “third rails” in my opinion. It also only covers direct costs, not external costs (if I had a nickel for everytime “externality” was brought up).
Raising fuel taxes would be a lot easier if the money was not being diverted to bike paths, beautification projects, such as boulevard projects, bubble curbs and traffic calming, transit upgrades to intersection, capital construction projects for transit, streetcars, planning TOD’s, the floating esplanade or side walk or anythingelse that doesn’t improve the flow of traffic.
Oregon and especially Portland, is very good at using fuel taxes and auto and truck user fees, for anything but road capasity!
bike paths, beautification projects… bubble curbs and traffic calming, …the floating esplanade or side walk or anythingelse that doesn’t improve the flow of traffic.
These improve the flow of traffic.
Thanks!
DS
Dan, please explain how beautification projects improve the flow of traffic. (I already know they don’t. I just want to see what bullshit the left has invented that purports to suggest that they do.)