feature1.1-570.jpg

The argument at public meetings and in politics always seems to go like this: Highways are practical transportation projects because they pay for themselves, while public transit, bike, and pedestrian projects require exorbitant subsidies.

A new report by the US Public Interest Research Group debunks part of that thinking, showing that roads don’t pay for themselves. They’re paid for both by users (through gas taxes and tolls) and through substantial contributions from general taxes that non-users also pay.

Wonky graphs showing national subsidies to road projects over time are below the cut for the nerds, but here’s the quick version: A lot of the subsidy for highways comes in the form of local spending on streets and secondary roads, which are largely paid for from property tax or general tax revenue. In 2008, local governments spent more than $31 billion on highways raised from property taxes, assessments, and general fund revenues, says the report. That means people who don’t drive very often are still shouldering the cost of highways (see related argument: cyclists don’t pay taxes).

The report says that the federal government typically covers 80 percent of the cost of highway expansion projects, leaving local or state governments to cover the last twenty percent, while the feds only cover 50 percent of new transit projects on average. “It is not hard to see how this system skews transportation decision-making,” says the report.

Lengthy analysis of this report over at Streetsblog DC—graphs below the cut!

Picture_2.png
Picture_3.png

Sarah Shay Mirk reported on transportation, sex and gender issues, and politics at the Mercury from 2008-2013. They have gone on to make many things, including countless comics and several books.

15 replies on “Debunking the Myth that Highways Pay for Themselves”

  1. Interesting… In the “Cumulative Net Difference” chart, there is a flat spot starting early in the Clinton administration (or late in the 1st Bush administration), lasting until around the turn of the century. Was there a short moment of balance (or moderately less imbalance) in transportation funding during that time?

  2. Great photo from those halcyon days when Portland still had its own battleship! Nobody messed with us, that’s for damn sure.

  3. Finally getting some media attention. As a non-car-driving person who pays property taxes, I subsidize car infrastructure I don’t use such as parking spaces and freeways. That’s right: cyclists subsidize motorists, not the other way around.

    Every investment in light rail etc. is an investment in reducing the need for expensive wide freeways or expanding roads. It costs more to build one mile of urban freeway than Portland has spent on bike-related infrastructure in its entire history.

  4. I was going to point out that anyone who isn’t a yeoman farmer or a starving shut-in probably benefits from highways, but then I realized that a good portion of the Merc readership probably falls into either or both of those categories.

  5. @organic.brian – Well, I don’t ride a bike, and the city is building plenty of bike paths with my tax money. So when you say “…not the other way around”…? Isn’t it, well, both ways?

  7. Every time the price of fuel goes up, the government does the wrong thing to curb fuel use. They do everything they can think of to keep the price low and usage high. With less use wear, and tear on the roads will be reduced and the frequency and overall cost of repairs will go down. It’s common sense. Also, the petroleum-related costs built into consumer goods will force people to think more about what they buy. It’s common sense, but sense isn’t very common when it comes to petroleum. Yet.

  9. And with no foreseeable living wage for many families in the near future, I’m sure rising food prices will mean nothing except an opportunity to contemplate consumer choices.

  10. Oh come on any talk about taxes/federal budgets is nonsense without acknowledgement of the historically low taxes on upper income brackets and historically high defense spending.

    If you want to have a conversation about how highways affect commodity distribution and pricing, that’s interesting! But acting like our system doesn’t have some very large externalities affecting the end consumer makes your talk meaningless.

  11. “Exhorbitant” was the word you wanted there.

    Yes, I’m an asshole because I’m telling a person who is lucky enough to write for a living how to spell words in the language she grew up speaking and writing.

Comments are closed.