Comments on: what do roads really cost?

Question: what do roads really cost?

R343L — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:12:43 -0800

What do our (United States) roads really cost?

I want to do some kind of comparison of the "true" costs of various ways of organizing human transportation, with an emphasis on california (and specifically the san francisco area). Specifically, you see citations that say only X% of a transportation system's budget is paid for by directed charges (rider fares, gasoline taxes, etc. depending on what kind of system it is). What I'm looking for are studies/reports that say how much money is spent building and maintaining, e.g., all the roads in a geographical area (highways, interstates, local roads, etc.) Afterall, I hear about new projects, new funding, etc. all the time often in the millions and billions of dollars. For instance, the California DOT budget in 2001/02 was 8 *billion* dollars. How do I figure out how much was spent over time in general on road building/maintanence?

The aim to all of this is trying to figure out if various public/mass transit systems are really as inefficient as people say. Whenever people (or organizations) argue about it, they say "but fares don't cover the entire cost of running the " or they say "no one rides it" or "I don't want to subsidize something I don't use". But there are a lot of "hidden" costs to any form of human transportation. The US Dept of Transportation has studies that show that at least for the highway system, user fees such as gasoline taxes, etc. do not pay the full cost.

Is is perhaps just the case that in the US, we choose to subsidize one system over another? Thus, that publically we pretend that car transportation costs are primarily or entirely born by the drivers/truckers, but that because mass transit is inefficient, stupid, etc., the users have to be subsidized.

I am having an inordinately difficult time finding good stuff online for this. Lots of policy recommendations (including privitization of all roads!) and some statistics, but not a lot of "we spent X dollars in this area on these transportation systems". I might have to break down and go to a uni library! But perhaps someone here as tried this before and can point me in the right direction. :)

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:32:03 -0800

USDOT Highway Finance Series 1994-2004

By: R343L

R343L — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:57:22 -0800

Oh my. How did I miss *that* when I found the DOT cost analysis study??? Thanks!

By: nanojath

nanojath — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:05:40 -0800

Although afield from the specific question you ask, you may find good general thinking material in this publication: Making the Car Pay its Way (PDF File). A long time ago I worked for the organization that produced this, but I didn't have anything to do with its publication (before my time).

By: R343L

R343L — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:16:17 -0800

nanojath: not too far afield. Interesting paper. I've found similar but that one seems a lot clearer.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:50:23 -0800

At least when it comes to Massachusetts, the nominal budget for highways and roads doesn't really indicate anything because it's a major form of patronage, and a lot of the money is wasted.

That's one of the reasons why the Big Dig project has been going so badly: it was under control of the state highway division.

There's a degree of that in highway spending everywhere, but it's worse in some states than in others.

By: Skwirl

Skwirl — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:43:05 -0800

Not to distract too much from the good discussion above, but if we're talking "true cost" in the hippy-environmentalist sense, there are also a lot of extremely difficult to measure factors: Automobile injuries and fatalities, the opportunity cost of lost land, including possibly forever ruined farmland, crushed and divided low-income neighborhoods (Many prominent black communities were killed by the Interstate Highway System), traffic policing, childhood asthma, environmental cost, etc... You might also seek out economic anecdotes comparing the success of car friendly versus multi-modal friendly business districts.

It seems pretty intuitive to me that the math of moving 2-3 tons of steel per person/trip in our SOV culture is pretty ridiculous. You'll probably have better luck, or at least more fun, with things you can put solid numbers on, though, since that old "I don't ride the bus, so I don't want to subsidize it," yarn is never backed up by fact. Incidentally, what do these people do when their car unexpectantly breaks down and is in the shop for a week?

You can always mold your argument for your audience, too. A libertarian might be sold on subsidized roads, but they might also be sold on increased state power on public roads (Pave the world, then start ticketing). I think there's also a strong argument for the right to transportation and the idea that we must provide viable and safe transportaion for the too young, the too old, the disabled and the poor.

By: R343L

R343L — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:47:49 -0800

skwirl: very true about the other costs, but like you said, it's a lot easier to quantify the more official costs (road building, etc.) There *are* some attempts to include some social costs (pollution, accidents, etc) but I don't really understand the methods for allocating them. I do understand things like a road costing X million dollars to build and N thousands to maintain. :)

By: kdar

kdar — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:00:38 -0800

R343L, I'd be interested to see the results of this research whenever you're finished with it. That is, as long as you're at liberty to disclose them.

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:21:07 -0800

Highways let us go practically anywhere, but do we know where we're going? See Back Up on the Interstate and Futurism, Cars and the Interstate Highway System.

By: R343L

R343L — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:53:54 -0800

kdar: entirely personal research so if I can put together something actually *useful* I'd definitely put it up somewhere.