Actually, registration and gas taxes don't even cover the damage cars do to tax payer subsidized roads. The real taxpayer funded contribution to transport is almost identical for public and private transport. The key difference is that cars have the roads, public space and pollution subsidized where as transit have the marginal ticket price subsidized.
Here's another example: The Texas Department of Transportation's 2010 budget was $8 billion. Its 2009 revenue from gas taxes (after diversions) was about $1.5 billion.
Texas levies a 20 cent per gallon tax on gas and diesel, while the federal government levies an 18.4 cent tax for gas and 24.4 cents for diesel.
Over 2 years (the budget period for the state) the gas tax provided $4.55 billion for roadwork. However, 1/4 of the state gas tax revenue is diverted to education so the actual revenue is around $6.1 billion. Additionally, $6.9 billion of funding is provided from federal sources. This is roughly equivalent to the amount raised by the federal gas tax but also pays for things like airports. A further $2.7 billion is raised through registration fees, and other motor vehicle related taxes and fees.
In total the gas and motor vehicle related taxes pay for the entirety of the TxDOT budget plus they help subsidize the local school system to the tune of 3/4 of a billion per year.
I think you're correct that I misused the numbers. My point that roads don't pay for themselves is still correct.
"In Texas, [Mike Krusee, former chairman of the Texas House of Representatives Transportation Committee] said that, on average, it cost the state 20-30 cents per person per mile to build and maintain a road to the suburbs, yet drivers only pay on average 2-3 cents per mile through the gas tax, vehicles fees, etc.
"What we found was that no road that we built in Texas paid for itself," said Krusee. "None."
This doesn't say that car users are not paying for the roads they use. Indeed, the figures I pointed out already proved they do pay, and more. What this is saying is quite different. It's saying that some roads are more expensive per passenger-mile than others, and the most recently built roads in Texas are being subsidized by other roads. He's making the argument that people driving (and thus using gas, and thus paying the gas tax) on poorly maintained roads in the city center are subsidizing the construction of less trafficked roads in the suburbs.
It's questionable to me whether this is even a valid complaint. Road upkeep and maintenance is not always linearly proportional to gasoline consumption. Cars and trucks will idle more in the city than in the suburbs and thus increase gas use, but that's no excuse to demand a higher proportion of funds be used for those roads.
Besides which, at best this is a problem of car use subsidizing other car use, not of non-car tax revenues being misspent to subsidize road building.
It's questionable to me whether this is even a valid complaint. [...] that's no excuse to demand a higher proportion of funds be used for those roads.
It is a valid complaint. It's not about demanding that the funds be used for those roads; it's about the people who use roads being the ones who pay for them. That isn't currently the case.
Besides which, at best this is a problem of car use subsidizing other car use, not of non-car tax revenues being misspent to subsidize road building.
Since the gas tax is insufficient to meet Texas's road needs, cities and counties have been funding them from their general funds; that is, via property and sales taxes. They are only partially reimbursed by the state.
It doesn't sound like you're taking into account the opportunity cost of the land set aside for roads. That's valuable space that could be used for other things.
> Its 2009 revenue from gas taxes (after diversions) was about $1.5 billion.
Not so fast - you dont get to ignore diversions.
Also, you're ignoring other car-taxes, from registration, to sales tax (I don't know if Texas has both sales and gas taxes, but CA does), to sales tax on car stuff. (No cars, no sales tax on car stuff.)
Also, car use is pretty much universal, so there can't be a significant amount of money going from non-car users to car subsidies. It's car uses paying, even when it isn't labelled a "car tax".
"Mass transit" subsidies are mostly money from "not users".
If you care to read a little ways up the thread you'll see that the parent was replying to the assertion that "drivers do pay for roads in the form of gasoline taxes".
Incidentally, registration fees are there to cover the cost of the beaurocracy overseeing the registration, the sales tax brings in about $235 million (based on 1 car per 2 people, replaced every 10 years, selling for $15,000). It might really be higher or lower, but its still going to be far less than the gas tax. And sales tax on car incidentals is going to be much less than that.
Also, the fact that there are more car users actually doesn't tell us anything about which way the net flow of money goes. If there are 10 times as many car users, but expenditures on roads is 20 times what it is on trains then there will be a fairly large flow of money from train users to car users. If spending on roads is only 5 times as much as on trains, there will be a fairly large flow in the other direction.
So may I suggest you consider the facts a bit more carefully the next time you try imputing dishonesty to your opponent?
> If you care to read a little ways up the thread you'll see that the parent was replying to the assertion that "drivers do pay for roads in the form of gasoline taxes".
Way to miss the point.
> Incidentally, registration fees are there to cover the cost of the beaurocracy overseeing the registration
They do more than that.
> sales tax brings in about $235 million (based on 1 car per 2 people, replaced every 10 years, selling for $15,000).
Cars are sold more often than every 10 years, the average new cost is more than $15k, and I wrote "car stuff" for a reason. There are a lot of taxed car stuff purchases other than "car sales". And, I didn't even mention other taxes on biz providing car services and purchases.
If you're going to argue that someone isn't properly accounting....
> Also, the fact that there are more car users actually doesn't tell us anything about which way the net flow of money goes
Net flow doesn't have the properties that your argument requires.
The subsidy argument says that folks who get deliveries by truck don't pay for the full cost of truck delivery in their direct payment for truck services. So, when a no-car-truck-delivery person pays a subsidy, they're actually just paying for the indirect truck-delivery costs.
And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, a huge fraction of the city costs for "cars" are required even if there isn't a single private car. Buses, "official vehicles", delivery trucks, and so on require roads. A lot of city road maintenance costs come from activities that have nothing to do with usage.
In short, you're assuming savings that can't happen.
Here is an example from Australia (heavily car dependent) http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2010/11/24/what-costs...