Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

All Together Now: Roads Do Not “Pay For Themselves”

Over in the discussion thread on my ORCA post (summary: Riding the bus is cheaper than owning a car, and you can read while you do it!), some bus-hatin’ folks have brought up that ever-popular canard: Roads pay for themselves through “user fees” like gas taxes, whereas transit is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Fortuitously enough, just this morning, the US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) came out with a report on that very subject. It concludes, “Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label ‘user fees.’”

Before jumping into the numbers, the report first dispenses with the idea that gas taxes are “user fees.” Unlike tolls—which drivers pay to use specific roads—”the amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes.” In fact, people pay gas taxes for the miles they drive on local streets and roads, despite the fact that those taxes mostly pay for state and federal highway projects.

As for the numbers: According to the report, the amount spent on highways, roads, and streets has exceeded the amount raised through taxes, tolls, and other “user fees” by $600 billion since the interstate highway system was first built in the 1950s—”a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.” Moreover, the report points out, most states exempt gas from state sales taxes, diverting those tax revenues to highways in the form of gas taxes. (This situation is even more pronounced in states, like Washington State, where gas-tax revenue can only be spent on highways.) As the report notes, “the shuffling that allows drivers to shift a part of their tax burden to a fund that largely benefits themselves is something extremely rare in our tax system. It is an exception—not the realization of some universally accepted principle of public finance.”

In reality, user fees pay only about half percent of highway costs, down 10 percent in the past decade. The reason for this gap is that because state and federal gas taxes haven’t grown at the rate of inflation, the total amount of gas taxes collected shrunk 32 percent between 1998 and 2009.

And then there’s the factor highway proponents never want to talk about: Externalities, or the negative impacts imposed by drivers on society, including people who don’t use the highway system. Those include the cost of accidents (injuries, deaths, property damage); air and water pollution from greenhouse gases and runoff; dependence on foreign oil; and sprawl. According to a 2009 study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, externalities make up fully 35 percent of the cost of driving.

Transit, in contrast, produces externalities that are almost entirely positive: Less congestion, lower emissions, less oil dependence, and smarter development patterns.

I’m not saying that transit “pays for itself” through user fees either—my $81 a month ORCA card is “subsidized” by sales taxes (which, by the way, I pay along with everybody else)—but people who claim drivers pay their way and transit riders don’t are simply mistaken.




  • Gomez

    Nobody outside of the commenters in that post seriously makes that argument, Erica. We as a whole know roads don’t pay for themselves. This is a rebuttal to a non-argument.

  • Gomez

    Nobody outside of the commenters in that post seriously makes that argument, Erica. We as a whole know roads don’t pay for themselves. This is a rebuttal to a non-argument.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    What Gomez said. Don’t indulge the 1-2 anonymous Tea Bagger maniacs that post under multiple screen names.

  • sarah

    No one hates buses. No one. That’s a silly thing to say.

  • Rohr

    All together now, “this must be a slow news day”.

  • Blue Light

    If you are looking for “news” you’ll have to go elsewhere. This is a forum for advocacy groups and the advocacy groups that agree with them.

  • Blue Light

    If you are looking for “news” you’ll have to go elsewhere. This is a forum for advocacy groups and the advocacy groups that agree with them.

  • gloomy gus

    I’m glad USPIRG took the time to do this, but I’d agree with others who’ve pointed out how few have ever been dumb enough to say this. Useful roads provide easier travel, and don’t need to add more quantifiable value than that.

  • Anonymous

    FYI, Erica, here’s another report from perhaps a slightly more prestigious organization (Pew Charitable Trusts) saying pretty much the same thing…

    http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Cars do not pay for roads, they do have a subsidy.
    The study makes those points.

    I do remember the governor mentioning on 12/17/2010 SeattleChannel that she has agreed to work with Dow Constantine to get legislation through for more transit for the AWV replacement. I support that and expect that will cost me money and have a benefit to the city.

    What is the subsidy for mass transit?
    I ask because I really don’t know, and you only mention positive externalities.

  • Barfly

    The war on cars continues…..even better than the earlier ‘War on w!ne b@ttles’

  • Jakers

    Roads do pay for themselves. You ever see the movie, A Day Without a Mexican? Let’s imagine that tomorrow we wake up and all the roads are closed to SOVs. What would be the effect on tax revenue to the state? I’m talking about sales tax, not “user fees.” Cars and roads have allowed for a freer flow of labor and commerce and greater economic activity, which is all taxed.

    Are roads filled with SOVs the best solution? No. Is transit better? For the most part, yes. Is walking the best? Almost always. Fine transit is better, but roads have “paid” for themselves many times over.

  • Jakers

    Roads do pay for themselves. You ever see the movie, A Day Without a Mexican? Let’s imagine that tomorrow we wake up and all the roads are closed to SOVs. What would be the effect on tax revenue to the state? I’m talking about sales tax, not “user fees.” Cars and roads have allowed for a freer flow of labor and commerce and greater economic activity, which is all taxed.

    Are roads filled with SOVs the best solution? No. Is transit better? For the most part, yes. Is walking the best? Almost always. Fine transit is better, but roads have “paid” for themselves many times over.

  • Johns

    The same governor who vetoed the original bill? Did she provide any details on what that legislation might look like or how it might be funded?

  • Matt the Engineer

    Don’t quote me on any of this but as I recall: Some county sales tax goes to buses and light rail (if it’s in your county). Ferries* are funded through state sales taxes as well as county property taxes.

    * Hmmm. Are ferry funds a mass transit subsidy or a car subsidy? If only cars rode the ferries would look and cost exactly the same as now. If only people rode the ferries would be smaller and cheaper.

  • Michaelp

    I believe Ferries also get gas tax dollars, as they are considered part of the State Highway system.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    She did not go into detail what she and Doc Constantine agreed to have in legislation. That question might best be asked of Dow by a news reporter.
    As the governor did re-explain, this is a partnership between the state, the port, the city, and the county. Each partner has a particular responsibility.
    I will dig up the link and the unreported comment from the governor.

    Of only there was a news reporter that was overly preoccupied with transit issues that could contact the King County Exec and maybe find out if there is a legislator involved yet.
    I did not see a ore-filed bill on this.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    At the end should say “pre-filed bill” the edit function does not work well with my phone.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Did you wake up today and grab a cup of coffee?

    Did you have lunch?

    Are you using a computer?

    Chances are that some (or all) of your day involved the transport of goods by truck on a road.

    Do “fees” pay all of road usage? No…but all of us benefit from roads..much more so than any other transit lane.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Did you wake up today and grab a cup of coffee?

    Did you have lunch?

    Are you using a computer?

    Chances are that some (or all) of your day involved the transport of goods by truck on a road.

    Do “fees” pay all of road usage? No…but all of us benefit from roads..much more so than any other transit lane.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Did you wake up today and grab a cup of coffee?

    Did you have lunch?

    Are you using a computer?

    Chances are that some (or all) of your day involved the transport of goods by truck on a road.

    Do “fees” pay all of road usage? No…but all of us benefit from roads..much more so than any other transit lane.

  • Grover

    I just read through the report Erica references, and, as I expected, it is really a stupid piece of crap. It only counts gas taxes and tolls as revenues collected from motorists, even though there are a myriad of other taxes and fees motorists pay as a cost of driving.

    From the AAA report Erica quoted yesterday, the “average” car owner pays $585 per year in license, registration and taxes (not including gas tax). Since there were over 250 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2006, that would be $146 BILLION per year paid by motorists, far more than the amount spent per year on roads and highways.

  • ivan

    I hate to agree with Bailo, but he’s right. Erica, as she always does, made a superficial and fraudulent — and not very effective — argument to push her agenda. She focused only on the cost of highways without even a wink and a nod to the benefits that they provide, which are probably beyond quantifiable.

    Publicola is becoming useless as a source of information, and there’s little pretense that they are practicing journalism. Even the level of advocacy is declining, a perfect example being this ludicrous, embarrassing post. The rest is gossip and self-referential, self-promoting crap. And these two carry on without a care in the world, much less a clue.

  • Phyllis

    According to Metro (in 2006), their “fare box recovery ratio” was just over 19%. This means that Erica’s $81 ORCA card costs King County an additional $325 per month. There’s your subsidy number Mr. Baker.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8FF68943-1671-4D75-8F89-BA0DD29E71C9/0/09KingCounty.pdf

  • Phyllis

    According to Metro (in 2006), their “fare box recovery ratio” was just over 19%. This means that Erica’s $81 ORCA card costs King County an additional $325 per month. There’s your subsidy number Mr. Baker.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8FF68943-1671-4D75-8F89-BA0DD29E71C9/0/09KingCounty.pdf

  • Grover

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013832220_potholes03m.html

    “The [Seattle] city budget this year includes $42.2 million for street repair and “major maintenance” such as repaving. ”

    Seattle revenue for 2010 just from parking fees, parking taxes and parking fines was about $70 million — more than the amount spent on street repair and “major maintenance.”

    The USPIRG “report” does not include any revenues from parking. Surprise!

  • Anonymous

    “bus-hatin’ folks”

    This frothing comment from the same person who was so upset about supposedly fictional “war on cars” propaganda yesterday. Do you ever measure yourself by the same standards you apply to others, Erica?

    Some of us try to have a more balanced view of transportation, I hope you won’t hold it against us.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Jinkies, mystery solved.

    Wait, the county doesn’t have money. I have money, the county takes my money for county do-dads, Reagan Dunn hairspray, and transit?

    Back in 2006 I actually had a bus run a route I could use.

  • Reasoned

    http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8958

    Flip to pages 9-12 to see charts showing spending on road/highway capital projects and maintenance by Federal plus State & Local governments. The total is less than $150B in 2006 dollars because some of the data includes billions in Federal operations subsidies for transit systems.

    The “250 million cars” Grover cites above is not exactly accurate for multiplying against AAAs $585 figure. Of that 250 million, about 2.16 million were freight vehicles that pay substantially more on average.

    Given these data, it looks like license, registration, and (non-gas) taxes paid by American motorists not only paid for all governmental capital and operations expenditures for roads, they paid extra billions for transit as well.

    On top of this, motorists and freight movers paid $35.75B in fuel taxes in 2006. (http://taxfoundation.org/research/show/241.html).

    If AAA’s numbers are correct, and I’m sure they are since Erica certainly vetted them before she included them in her article, then data from AAA, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Tax Foundation show Erica’s premise is incorrect.

    Some may say there are indirect economics losses from motor vehicle usage. Only a moron would argue this isn’t true. Carbon, environmental, health, and other economic costs are certainly borne by society above and beyond the hard dollar costs noted above.

    Similarly, only a moron would argue roads and highways are not an economic asset. The simple enabling of economic activity they provide is massive. While the original purpose of the Federal Highway System, troop mobility, seems antiquated it should not be wholly dismissed. Don’t also forget happiness (the open road), health benefits (speedy access for sick to healthcare), and others.

  • Grover

    Actually, SUV’s make up about 40% of U.S. passenger vehicles. The AAA report gives the license, registration and taxes for an SUV as $735 per year (page 8).

    http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Assets/Files/201048859350.Driving%20Costs%202010.pdf

    So, the actual average for the U.S. fleet is about $645 per year in license, registration and non-gas taxes. That totals $161 billion per year in federal, state, and local government revenues from license, registration and non-gas taxes, which are not included in the USPIRG report.

  • Jay

    Yeah, I’m sure a back-of-the-napkin calculation by an internet troll is much more accurate and reasoned than the USPIRG and Pew Charitable Trust reports.

  • Anonymous

    That argument only works because it changes the terms of the argument. The only claim Erica was addressing was that user fees such as gas taxes, tolls, licensing fees, etc., *themselves* pay for the costs of building and maintaining roads.

    You would think she was setting up a straw man, but for the fact the user-fees claim consistently rears its head every time anyone in this town publishes an article, editorial, or blog post touching on roads or bicycles or trains or buses or pedestrians or ferries or, probably, kayak launches.

  • Reasoned

    Nice ad hominem. We both cited sources. Are our facts wrong? Our analysis? Our sources?

  • Grover

    Reasoned. You seem to be good at research. Can you find the tax revenues generated by rental car taxes and fees in WA state and the U.S., or some reasonable estimate. For example, the taxes on rental cars in Seattle add up to something like 17.5% — 12.5% from the state, and 5% from the city. But, I have no idea how much revenue those taxes generate.

    It must be another good chunk of revenues generated by motorists, which USPIRG just leaves out of their report.

  • Grover

    The USPIRG report is nothing but a propaganda piece for car-haters like Erica. You should try actually reading it. It’s quite pathetic.

  • Grover

    The USPIRG report is nothing but a propaganda piece for car-haters like Erica. You should try actually reading it. It’s quite pathetic.

  • Natehc

    55% of people commuting to Downtown Seattle use transit. (not including biking or walking)
    75% of people commuting to the University District use transit. (again, no including biking or walking)

    If those people stopped using transit, this region would come to a standstill. Do roads help everyone? Yes. Does that mean transit is less useful to this region? No.

    The only point of this blog post is to show that the idea that roads pay for themselves is ridiculous. They have to be subsidized, just like transit.

  • hoary

    What ivan said. Publicola needs to refocus on its core competency… juicy political gossip.

    No one gives a shit about some hippies take on transportation policy unless they already agree in the first place.

  • Andrew

    and if more people bought ORCA cards the subsidy would go down, as would the # of cars on the road.

  • Reasoned

    http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-122_56953.PDF

    Page 51, about 2/3 of the way down.

    About $7B per year in the US according to industry estimates. I wouldn’t add this to the totals we’ve worked out above since these taxes are not usually earmarked for transportation/roads. Locally, they go to touristy items like stadiums and convention centers. Elsewhere they fund transit. Some go to the general fund black hole.

  • Reasoned

    Another quick search revealed in 2002, state and local governments collected $1.2B in fees for parking.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc024x4.pdf

  • TransPlanner

    While I agree with your post overall (and I’ll just state right up front that I’m a transit planner and advocate), I think the following statement needs to be qualified:

    “Transit, in contrast, produces externalities that are almost entirely positive: Less congestion, lower emissions, less oil dependence, and smarter development patterns.”

    Positive relative to driving perhaps, but were it to be measured against walking or cycling, it would have a more negative environmental impact than those two. I’m only pointing this out, because it’s the type of statement that could get slammed by those who are anti-transit. Regardless, thanks for the great summary of the USPIRG study.

  • Morgan

    Paragraph four includes a rational error, which suggests that national studies are road subsidies don’t apply well to Washington. In states like ours, where fuel taxes can only be spent on roads ameliorates roads subsidies rather than exacerbating them, as Erica suggests. Imagine a $5/gallon fuel tax (user fee) that only went to roads. This would certainly reduce, probably even eliminate, our road subsidy phenomenon.

  • Morgan

    A subsidy discussion per se should be limited to the fiscal, social, environmental, energy, etc. costs of building, maintaining and decommissioning the system(s) under discussion. The economic benefit of said systems is a distinct topic of analysis. Unfortunately, Erica was tempted into cited positive externalities of transit, which incited an uproar from the ignored side of her equation.

    In counter point to those touting the benefits of road systems, we shouldn’t forget that rail and water systems were the dominant method of long-distance transport of people and goods before massive road subsidies, especially in the 50s. Look to the east coast, and we can see that rail systems still move productive human capital.

    In the end, just because we have invested in a road system such that it now delivers the preponderance of comparative economic benefit doesn’t mean we made the right choices in the past or that we should continue to invest in the status quo. This would be circular analysis.