To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:58:33 -0500
Subject: [WSFA] road use subsidies
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:50:05 -0500 (EST) "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl at KeithLynch.net> writes:

> If truckers paid the full cost of their road usage, passing it
> along
> to buyers of truck-shipped goods, people would pay in proportion
> to their usage.

That sounds right.  But who says trucking shippers don't pay the full
cost of their road usage?  It's clear that public transportation users
(Metro and bus) are subsidized, and that's the case just about everywhere
in the developed world, not just the US.  Amtrak is effectively
subsidized, despite long running efforts to make it self-supporting,
since every so often it erupts in a financial crisis and needs a bailout.

But are road users subsidized?  The costs of building and maintaining
federal and state highways are paid out of highway trust funds, and those
trust funds are fed with state and federal motor fuel taxes.  Sometimes,
those funds are raided to provide subsidies to public transport.  Given
the laws of physics, taxing motor fuel is roughly equivalent to a flat
tax per ton-mile of gross vehicle weight.  A fully loaded tractor trailer
truck can carry freight equal to as much as 80% of the vehicle gross
weight.  Also, hefty registration fees are imposed on heavy trucks, much
more than the fees on cars, and in most places registration fees are not
imposed on bicycles.

>
> If the alternative to transit is for every would-be transit rider
> to drive a car, then transit benefits every motorist who encounters
> lighter and faster traffic, more open parking spaces, and fewer car
> crashes.

The converse of that argument would be that if all drivers suddenly
deserted their cars for public transit, busses and Metro rail cars would
be packed like sardine tins, there would be long lines outside Metro
stations most of the time, and passengers would be falling off
over-crowded platforms onto the tracks.

And it benefits everyone who breathes less car-produced
> air pollution.

Less car-produced air pollution.  But who says public transport does not
pollute?  Metro rail's air pollution comes out of power plant
smokestacks, and busses spew thick black diesel exhaust.  Either form of
transport could be made pollution-free given advances in technology.

If the alternative to transit is for every would-be
> transit rider to just stay home, then it benefits everyone who is
> a customer of any company at which a transit rider works.  Or who
> has a transit rider as their own customer.

I don't follow that.  If a transit commuter stays home, depriving the
employing business of his work, how would that benefit everyone?  If a
transit rider stays home and so stops being a customer, how does that
benefit a business which thus loses a customer?

> Transit is subsidized, but car infrastructure is subsidized far
> more.
> As is commercial aviation.  I'd like to see an end to all subsidies.
>

How is car infrastructure and commercial aviation subsidized?

> There used to be profitable private transit companies, but they
> were
> run out of business by subsidized government-run transit.
>

Yes.  In some poor African and Asian countries, there is a thriving
competitive market in transit for hire - jitney service.  More developed
countries are afraid of allowing unregulated jitney service, largely for
safety reasons.  The safety record of the third-world jitneys is pretty
bad, and the operators try to pack on as many passengers as possible, to
the detriment of safety and comfort.  But that's probably the only way to
keep fares low enough for the riders to afford.  Also, in developed
countries, there is the concern that unregulated transport for hire for
would result in poor service.  For example, the operators would only run
routes and schedules they thought would be profitable, and they would be
prone to change schedules on the fly, if they even keep schedules at all.
 Having no schedules works OK in the third world when there is always a
crowd waiting at the stop for the next jitney, whenever it comes, but
Americans have come to expect predictable, dependable, scheduled service,
with comfortable seating.

Even so, I would prefer to have bus and taxi service in this country
privatized and deregulated, the only regulatory involvement being to
enforce minimum safety standards and combat fraud.  Then the old problem
of not being able to get a taxi during a snowstorm, or not being able to
get a taxi ride to a part of town from where the taxi would have to
return empty, would be replaced with the option to negotiate a fare high
enough to satisfy the taxi driver.  Market fares would fluctuate with
time of day, weather, and the impact of local events.

For privatized bus service, it could be regulated to the extent that
busses would be required to adhere to their announced schedules and
routes, providing advance notice of any service to be dropped.  Commuters
in outlying communities could charter busses to run into the city in the
morning, and back out in the evening.  With government-sponsored bus
service, it can take years get service expanded, if each passenger-mile
of expanded service increases the financial losses of the system.

Ron Kean

.