Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag infrastructure

Urban[ism] Legend: Gas Taxes and Fees Cover All Costs of Road Use

No doubt, mass production of the automobile is one of the greatest innovations of all times. It has allowed for increased mobility of goods and people, which has greatly improved productivity and leisure. But, is subsidizing mobility at the expense of taxpayers taking things too far? In various blogs and forums, I frequently come across the argument that the costs of automobile use are fully (or mostly) internalized through gas taxes and fees. Often, this argument is used by free-market impostors against transit subsidies, or by automobile enthusiasts in defense of highway socialism. The usual argument is that the costs of roads and infrastructure are paid through gas taxes, and thus the users of the roads are funding what they use. This is a powerful and pervasive myth that will continue to distort the truth, unless serious scrutiny is given to the assertion. Let us first examine the validity of the assertion through studies of the explicit costs (actual dollars) of roads in the US and the taxes and fees collected. Next, we will look deeper and discuss the implicit costs (ie opportunity costs) of roads and automobile use as well as acknowledge externalities involved with automobile use. The Explicit Costs We can see the extent of the Urbanism Legend by looking at wikipedia: Virtually 100 percent of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through user fees, primarily fuel taxes, collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges.[citation needed] (The claim that only 56 percent of costs are funded by user fees is based on the misinterpretation of a table that applies to all highways, roads, and streets, not just the Interstate Highways.[citation needed]) In the eastern United States, large sections of some Interstate highways planned or built prior to 1956 are […]

Urban[ism] Legend: Zoning Creates Density

This post will be the first of many of an ongoing feature at Market Urbanism entitled Urbanism Legends. (a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) In many public forums and in the blogosphere, I consistently encounter myths about land development and Urban Economics. These myths typically look at how policies may benefit or harm a specific person or groups of people. However, as with many popular economic misconceptions, these viewpoints fail to look at how a particular policy may affect other, less visible people. These less visible people are the ones who William Graham Sumner called “The Forgotten Man” in a famous 1883 lecture. These myths are plentiful, and I expect the feature to be stocked with myths to dispel well into the distant future. In many different contexts, I have heard people argue that liberalizing zoning restrictions will cause “over development” or high density development filled with low income people. Even in relatively low density areas, people make the sensationalist argument that if zoning restrictions were lifted, high rises would be built in their community, creating congestion and overburdening infrastructure. On the other end of the spectrum, I have even heard free-market advocates argue against Smart Growth and other urbanist concepts using several Urbanism Legends. They argue that Smart Growth goes against the market and causes density to increase in urban areas. They are correct when they refer to Urban Growth Boundaries that restrict development in outlying areas. Strangely, these market advocates rarely applaud Smart Growth proponents advocacy for loosening zoning restrictions in infill areas. They have argued that the upzoning discourages single family homes, which is the desired living arrangement for most people. And that the market should allow for more single family homes. The reality is that zoning can not create […]

Want Density? Turn the Free Market Loose

Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens. And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel. In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes: Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density. Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, […]

Krugman: Stranded in Suburbia

Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed this morning how the US living and transportation patterns will not cope with high oil prices as well as European cities: Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard. For one thing, houses last a lot longer than cars. Long after today’s S.U.V.’s have become antique collectors’ items, millions of people will still be living in subdivisions built when gas was $1.50 or less a gallon. Infrastructure is another problem. Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access. Over the long-run the US can adapt it’s living patterns to expensive oil by curbing it’s habit of subsidizing roadways. However, only if density restrictions soften accordingly. If drivers were responsible for the full costs of their location and transportation decisions, they would gradually locate to more European-like locations. This will naturally increase the demand for transit. Private investment and entrepreneurship under such conditions should be able to provide innovative solutions to the chicken-and egg problem Krugman is concerned about.

The Great Depression and America’s Addiction to Government Roads and Oil

One of my favorite new blogs, Rationalitate brought up a topic that I have spent much time thinking about, The Great Depression and Public Roads: In a time before the widespread adoption of income and sales taxes, property taxes made up the lion’s share of local government revenues: two-thirds of all revenue according to Dick Netzer, and over 90% of all taxes levied in cities of more than 30,000 according to David Beito. …property owners and renters were subsidizing roads for the benefit of the wealthy. Real estate developers who ran private forms of mass transit (mostly streetcars) and who were in direct competition with government-financed roads were some of the biggest payers of taxes, which makes the transfer especially ironic. It is a tragic coincidence that big government policies became popular during the same era as the automobile. History books champion Roosevelt and his New Deal, but few are willing to attribute our dependence on oil to the progressive policies that exploded during the Depression and continued through Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System and on to this day. The big government solutions to “create jobs” drew resources from productive sources to fund projects that burdened future generations with the costs of maintenance, debt repayment, and auto dependency, as well as the abandonment of urban areas and rail infrastructure for an extended time. This is a topic that deserves more attention. One could write a book on it.

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire