I have posted a few topics discussing my negative views of the American automotive and suburban experience. I have made my views known mostly from a political point of view. I will now attempt this using economics and economics only.
If you live in one of America's large cities you may often wonder why the new highway that was just expanded or built fills up to capacity within 3 to 4 years. In some cases they are actually obsolete before they are even finished. It is because highways are considered, in economics, as close to a "free good" as you can possibly get. In economics you know that the lower something is priced the more will be bought. So consumers (motorists) are very eager to use up new lanes of traffic or new highways as soon as they are built because they believe the price of using them is so small. Say's Law states that supply creates demand. Add that to perceived price of $0 and you get highways that are doomed to fill up soon after they are built.
**Government auto subsidies equal about $5000 per auto per year. The price of highways and parking is factored into the costs of sales, income, and property taxes. So highways aren't a free good, though they are percieved to be free because you don't actually pay to drive on them. Indirectly everyone pays for them. Even those who do not use them. $5000 per auto per year adds to a large sum of money that could be used for something else that provides a better return such as mass transit rail.
**denotes a correction
Full Version: America's Auto Subsidy
Actually, that $5000 per car is an average that is mostly paid through exise taxes paid via transport carriers, such as 18 wheelers, and added into the price of goods, which is one of those things that Frederick Bastiet wrote about.
While I agree with your desire to persuade others to use public transportation, this will probably not work when traveling outside the cities.
And too, I believe that the concept of individual freedom is behind the desire for automobiles over public transportation, even when it is not in their economic self interest.
I have another suggestion also. Perhaps the state and local governments should encourage working more at home and telecommunicating more. That would easily cut down on the need for transportation. Since I work at home, I don't go out all that much. And I am happy for that.
While I agree with your desire to persuade others to use public transportation, this will probably not work when traveling outside the cities.
And too, I believe that the concept of individual freedom is behind the desire for automobiles over public transportation, even when it is not in their economic self interest.
I have another suggestion also. Perhaps the state and local governments should encourage working more at home and telecommunicating more. That would easily cut down on the need for transportation. Since I work at home, I don't go out all that much. And I am happy for that.
QUOTE (John L @ Feb 6 2006, 12:53 PM)
Actually, that $5000 per car is an average that is mostly paid through exise taxes paid via transport carriers, such as 18 wheelers, and added into the price of goods, which is one of those things that Frederick Bastiet wrote about.
While I agree with your desire to persuade others to use public transportation, this will probably not work when traveling outside the cities.
And too, I believe that the concept of individual freedom is behind the desire for automobiles over public transportation, even when it is not in their economic self interest.
I have another suggestion also. Perhaps the state and local governments should encourage working more at home and telecommunicating more. That would easily cut down on the need for transportation. Since I work at home, I don't go out all that much. And I am happy for that.
While I agree with your desire to persuade others to use public transportation, this will probably not work when traveling outside the cities.
And too, I believe that the concept of individual freedom is behind the desire for automobiles over public transportation, even when it is not in their economic self interest.
I have another suggestion also. Perhaps the state and local governments should encourage working more at home and telecommunicating more. That would easily cut down on the need for transportation. Since I work at home, I don't go out all that much. And I am happy for that.
Would work ok, I guess, except for those of us in the social service industry. We have to have a face-to-face to evaluate the problem and to investigate prior to and after the referral to make sure it has been carried out. Talking over the phone doesn't cut it when you have to inteview as many as four people at once, all with different answers at times.......That type of service is all that is keeping many elderly in their homes instead of nursing homes. Also, Children's Protective Service and Adult Protective Service, same thing.
Correction below:
This should simply state "government" and not "United Stated federal goverment". I was mistaken and will correct it on the original post.
Yes the the direct payments by the federal government come from user fees such as: gasoline and diesel taxes, tires, trucks and trailors, and heavy vehicle fees. However this only accounts for 24% of the total. The rest comes from state and local governments. Most state and local funding comes from gasoline and sales taxes with a much smaller percentage coming from other taxes. However this amounts to over 110 billion (89 from states and 34 directly from federal[transfers not included and undetermined amount from local governments]) dollars a year funding highways with only 4 billion going to transit.
It should be noted the cost of $5000 per car includes indirect, "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup, and auto accident emergency services.
The concept of individual freedom is very important. However it is possible to own a car, drive it, and enjoy the freedom it gives without government subsidizing highway building that will never meet the demand of motorists because it creates its own demand. It is self-defeating. I think we should re-examine our transportation policies at the local, state, and federal level.
QUOTE
The United States federal government auto subsidies equal about $5000 per auto per year.
This should simply state "government" and not "United Stated federal goverment". I was mistaken and will correct it on the original post.
QUOTE
Actually, that $5000 per car is an average that is mostly paid through exise taxes paid via transport carriers, such as 18 wheelers, and added into the price of goods, which is one of those things that Frederick Bastiet wrote about.
Yes the the direct payments by the federal government come from user fees such as: gasoline and diesel taxes, tires, trucks and trailors, and heavy vehicle fees. However this only accounts for 24% of the total. The rest comes from state and local governments. Most state and local funding comes from gasoline and sales taxes with a much smaller percentage coming from other taxes. However this amounts to over 110 billion (89 from states and 34 directly from federal[transfers not included and undetermined amount from local governments]) dollars a year funding highways with only 4 billion going to transit.
It should be noted the cost of $5000 per car includes indirect, "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup, and auto accident emergency services.
QUOTE
And too, I believe that the concept of individual freedom is behind the desire for automobiles over public transportation, even when it is not in their economic self interest.
The concept of individual freedom is very important. However it is possible to own a car, drive it, and enjoy the freedom it gives without government subsidizing highway building that will never meet the demand of motorists because it creates its own demand. It is self-defeating. I think we should re-examine our transportation policies at the local, state, and federal level.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.