Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
I don't think they have enough to build the entire system and nobody wants to have the entire system consisting of toll roads.
|
As I wrote before, the reason we have public roads is a matter of convenience and quality. My objection to public roads was a matter of asking the questions "Who really pays for the roads?", "Who really benefits from the roads?", and "What are the psychological and economic effects caused by their existence?".
Let use remember this quote from that article for reference,
"What's going on here? Basically, all of the progressivity of our fellow developed nations' welfare states comes on the spending side. They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact. We, by contrast, tax progressively, and then spread the money around in a less progressive fashion."
When we look at financing for roads, people with lower incomes contribute far more as a percentage of their income to the cost of roads than the wealthy do. Local roads are largely financed through the property taxes that the poor also pay as part of their rent, but the poor may not even drive. If they do, they don't drive nearly as often. On top of that, the poor usually drive vehicles with worse average MPG's, and are less likely to drive at high speeds on highways(where MPG is best). On top of that, in recent years the wealthy have been increasingly driving electric or hybrid plug-in cars, whose "fuel"(IE electricity) isn't being taxed like gasoline gets taxed for the purpose of maintaining the roads.
Don't even get me started on the regressivity of the "car insurance mandate". That for most of the poor, it costs more to keep insurance on your car per year than the car you drive is even worth. Car insurance for me is the single largest expense on my car by a huge margin because I don't drive often.
If we come to the next question about "Who benefits?". I am not arguing that the poor don't benefit from roads, but simply that the benefits to the poor aren't the immediate purpose for the existence of public roads. The real purpose of public roads is to promote "trade", or more specifically to create "economic growth". The reason why mass transit is largely ignored, is because it doesn't really promote economic growth in the way that roads do. Basically, decisions regarding transportation always devolve to questions of economics, and has nothing to do with the poor, or about cost, or about quality of life, or anything else.
And since public roads are about economics, not people. Then as I wrote before, the biggest beneficiaries of public roads are international corporations such as Wal-mart and Exxon. Not the guy working minimum wage and who is just trying to keep a roof over his head. You could make an argument that the "poor" might actually be collectively better off if public roads were to disappear.
If we go to the last question, "What are the psychological and economic effects of public roads?". If you have to pay for something every single time you use it, you are less likely to use it. If you pay a one-time fee and can use something as much as you want with no additional cost, you are much more likely to use it. It is basically the problem with the "buffet". When I eat dinner where I have to pay for every single item I eat, I tend to eat less. When I go to a buffet where there is no additional cost to eating more, I'll eat until I'm sick.
In the case of roads, by making roads "free to use", you are effectively encouraging people to use them as much as possible. While it is true that gas costs money and is taxed, there is very little relationship between how much someone pays in taxes, and the relative cost imposed by their use of the roads. This encourages people to drive more, and by driving more they use more fuel(creating a slew of geo-political, and environmental problems).
If all roads were privatized, the relative cost of roads for an individual would better reflect the actual cost of their use of that road. Which should discourage some drivers, and actually lower the cost to drive for others. Between the cost of my insurance and "tag", I have to pay nearly $1,000 a year, even if I was to only drive my car once a month.
At one point I thought about buying two vehicles. My primary vehicle being a truck to haul stuff in, and a small car to get good gas mileage in. After breaking down how much it would cost just to keep the small car on the road per year(in just insurance + tag) vs how much I would actually drive it. I couldn't save any money by driving the high mileage car, and I can't get rid of the truck.
Look at it like this, if you had to pay even $600 a year for insurance and a tag(Lets say $40 a month for insurance plus tag), and gas was $3.20 per gallon. Then it costs $160 to drive 1,000 miles at 20 mpg. If you drive a car that got 40 mpg, it would reduce your cost per 1,000 miles to $80. To offset the cost of just insurance and tags, you would have to drive the second car about 8,000 miles a year. And that is only to break even(not including the cost to purchase and maintain that car).
Thus, instead of me having two cars so I can use less fuel. It makes me sense for me to just drive my low MPG vehicle more miles and use more fuel.
The point is, the system we have now is absolutely terrible. Those on the political left would help the poor, the environment, and punish corporations a lot more by abolishing all public roads. If there was ever a plan for vastly expanding the use of efficient railroads for transportation, abolishing public roads would be it(I used to work for an affiliate of BNSF railroad, I have given this issue a lot of thought).
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
