# Do Highways Pay for Themselves?



## henryj (Jan 10, 2011)

Apparently not according to this article:

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf


----------



## sportbiker (Jan 10, 2011)

And that's on the high side. How about roads that pay for only about a fifth of their cost?



> For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 11, 2011)

What a silly article. Of course highways don't pay for themselves, we pay for every red cent. Amtrak requires a subsidy, an amount of tax money to keep it competitive. Highways don't get subsidies, highways just plain cost money. When was the last time anybody thought of the gasoline tax as "subsidy money". Highways don't generate gas, except in the abstract. Since highways don't directly generate a taxable product, said tax cannot be considered subsidization.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 11, 2011)

The gas tax was, and still should be, regarded as the fare you pay for driving. There have always been lots of holes. City streets being one from the beginning. In some states maintenance of state highway routes skipped the portions within city limits. In years past you could see signs in some areas that simply said "END STATE MAINTENANCE" right next to the "PODUNK CITY LIMITS" or "NOW ENTERING PODUNK" sign.

It seems to have gone quiet over the last several years, but in times past there was a push to impose a ton-mile type of tax on trucks. The political clout of trucking companies, the teamsters, and companies that were truck oriented was such that these proposals usually died without ever getting out of committee in the various statehouses.

Gas taxes have always been on a cents per gallon basis rather than a percentage of sale price as is the norm with sales taxes. Therefore, they lose ground with inflation, as raising gas taxes is fought harder than just about any other tax. Further, more fuel efficient vehicles make the situation worse. The use of lighter and lighter automobiles and heavier and heavier trucks also make the imbalance between the proportion of assignable damage compared to income even worse when it comes to being a subsidy of trucking.

Probably the worst offenders today in the realm of costs both construction and maintenance being out of proportion to income from gas taxes would be the urban freeways. Such projects as the "Big Dig" would not cover their costs if the traffic ran bumper to bumper at 60 mph 24 hours a day.

The roads that do cover their costs, or at least come closest? Rural freeways and high volume non-freeway roads in the flatter parts of the various states. Relatively low cost to build and maintain and high volumes of traffic.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 12, 2011)

> The gas tax was, and still should be, regarded as the fare you pay for driving.


So I can tell that to the Ohio BMV next month when I pay $60 to renew my tags :lol: ?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

George Harris said:


> The use of lighter and lighter automobiles and heavier and heavier trucks also make the imbalance between the proportion of assignable damage compared to income even worse when it comes to being a subsidy of trucking.


Mr. Harris, on this issue I argue. Cars are NOT getting lighter. They are getting bigger and heavier. As for instance, the Mercedes-Benz 190E, when introduced, weighed in at 2800 lbs, 104" wheel base, 174" total length, 67" wide, 52" tall, with a 2.3 litre 4-cylinder producing 110 bhp. Today's equivalent car is the Mercedes C300, which weighs 3560 lbs, 108" wheelbase, 182" long, 69 wide, 56 high. And it commonly comes with the 4Matic AWD system these days, which adds another 300 lbs to that weight. It remains a car generally inadequate for transporting 4 passengers, either way.

But... that's just one model, right? Wrong. Some more:

Honda Accord:

1990: 2733 lbs, WB 107, Length 182, Width 67, Height 54

2010: 3605 lbs, WB 110, Length 195, Width 72, Height 58

Diff: + 872 lbs, WB +3", Length +13", Width +5", Height +4"

Ford Taurus:

1985: 3050lbs, WB 106, Length 188, Width 70", Height 54"

2010: 3930lbs, WB 113, Length 203, Width 76, Height 61"

Diff: +880lbs, WB +7", Length +15", Width +6", Height +7".

BMW 5-series:

1981: 3020lbs, WB 104", Length 182", Width 66, Height 56

2012: 4034lbs, WB 117, Length 192", Width 73", Height 58

Diff: +1014lb, WB +13", Length +10, Width 7", Height +2"

And just to make the argument that people are downsizing invalid,

1990 Honda Accord:

2733 lbs, WB 107, Length 182, Width 67, Height 54

2011 Honda Civic:

2831 lbs, WB 107, Length 177, Width 69, Height 56"

So... the 2011 Honda Civic is about the same size- a tad shorter in overall length, taller and wider- than the 1990 Honda Accord... and it weighs about 100 lbs more, to boot.

And just to make for some interesting comparing...

1973 Honda Civic:

1500lbs, WB 86, Length 139", Width 59", Height 52"

+1331lbs, WB +21", Length 38", Width +10", Height +4".

So compared to the Honda Civic of 1973, todays car is almost double the weight, nearly 2 feet longer in wheelbase, nearly 3 feet longer in overall length, almost a foot wider, and 4 inches taller.

So in my opinion, "downsizing" is us just getting back to sensible sizes that were present 20 years ago, if that. And either way, cars ain't getting lighter. Oh, lighter gauge metal, most assuredly. But what we take away from the weight of quality, we put back twofold in the weight of gimcrackery.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 4, 2011)

Good points, GML. Over the long haul, though, gas milage has improved considerably and the cost of highway construction and maintenance has gone up per unit of work. I have been in a different range of vehciles than you, though. For many years our main family vehicle was a 1971 full size Dodge van (bought used when it had over 100,000 miles.) This monster comfortably carried the family, but only got 12 to 14 miles per gallon. It was replaced by a 1987 Dodge van bought new, which got around 18 miles per gallon. That is where our clock stopped with vehicles, as in Taiwan we were mostly on public transportation or motorscooters, and since returning have lived in San Fran w/o a vehicle except occasionally renting one where public transportation was not practical.

Speeking of the gimcrackery: Much of the new wonders being advertized I do not either want or need. The most difficult to solve problems with an automobile seem to always be those that have electrical components to them. At this point when leaving SF and moving back to a more rational part of the country, the thought of doing a rebuild to whatever extent necessary the 1987 van sounds better than getting a new or newer vehicle with all these needless wonders.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 6, 2011)

Agreed. This is why my personal vehicle fleet consists of the last car without OBDSII ('95 MB E300 Diesel) and a Ford E250 van. Less components present, less components to break.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 7, 2011)

GML, there has been a lot of upwards size creep among specific name plates, but the buying habits of the public tend to remain the same. For example, the Ford Fusion is doing very well for Ford while the Taurus isn't selling anywhere near the hundreds of thousands it once did....part of that is because the Taurus has moved up in size so much, it now technically has more interior room than a Ford Crown Victoria.

The Fusion however, is almost exactly the same size as the first generation Taurus from 1987 that sold so well. The new Ford Focus has also grown in size to the point where it is nearly the size of the Ford Contour that the Fusion replaced.

The Nissan Maxima once was Nissan's mid-size entry to compete with the Taurus. It too has grown in size and price dramatically and the Altima once a large compact has moved up to be the primary.

Part of this is the constant attempt by manufacturers to one up each other in size in each size class. Everyone wants to be able to claim "roomiest mid-size". Well... you can only do that so many times until you end up in the Full Size class.

The Accord is straddling that line so closely that simply ordering the car with or without a sunroof can change the size class it's in. Interior size is measured in volume (useful if you're carrying loose sand). Order the Accord without a sunroof and it technically bumps it up into the full size bucket. Order it without and headroom is reduced just enough that it magically becomes a mid-size.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 7, 2011)

Actually, the Accord is a full size either way.

Size creep does happen, but the point I was making was twofold. First, the size of cars on the road is not decreasing. Second, the weight is increasing.

Next, the Maxima is not substantively different in size compared to its sibling, the Altima. They are based on the same platform, have a similar wheelbase, share the same powertrain, and except for body, content, and price, are basically the same car. Back in the mid 90s, the Maxima was similar in price to a V6 powered Toyota Camry. Now it is more in line with the Toyota Avalaon, and something of a spectacularly bad value. The Toyota Camry hits its highest price about where the Maxima begins. So using it as an example is unfair.

Ditto with the Taurus. The Taurus used to be a value-priced competitor to the Toyota Camry, a cheaper car- substantially so- in every way. Now the Taurus starts about $6k over where the Camry is, and a full loaded Taurus is over twice the price of a base Camry. Perhaps my using it as a comparison was unfair.


----------

