Something Special for Christmas Eve


I found this little gift in my RSS reader – a post on Streetsblog.net on all the ways that we subsidize auto drivers.

So let me re-gift this to all our Portland Transport readers, and especially to you, Terry.

A merry, joyous and healthy holiday to all…


16 responses to “Something Special for Christmas Eve”

  1. We really need to get those freeloading motorists off the public road until they are taxed enough to pay for their fair share of the costs.

  2. In some parts of the country where property, sales and/or income taxes are used to fund roads, the article may have some merit. However, in Oregon, the overwhelming majority of street, road, highway and motor vehicle bridge infrastructure is funded by motorist paid taxes and fees – NOT from property and income taxes as some people may think. There are some exceptions such as in urban renewal districts where the taxes on increased property values due to new development fund all kinds of transportation projects. Another example would be where a street must be dug up to repair or install utilities underneath it. Therefore as the article applies to Oregon, it is pure propaganda being promoted by the bicycling community using cherry picked data.

    The article mentions “free parking” on the street. But since motorists in Oregon pay the lion’s share for roads, it is not free at all. In fact the funds derived from metered parking where parking should also be free is poached to fund streetcar operations instead of all going to road maintenance. What is free (and can be compared to the so called free parking in the article) is the free riding by bicyclists on streets and roads when no direct bicycle tax is collected

    Furthermore, motorists, including motor freight carriers, through federal fuel taxes are the only group of road users that contribute to the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Approximately 20 percent or more of the dollars are siphoned off to not only fund bicycle infrastructure, but also transit. Therefore at the Federal level, bicyclists are freeloaders throughout the country.

    Finally, if bicyclists were in actuality subsidizing motorists, Sam Adams would not be requesting $24M in stimulus dollars specifically for bicycle infrastructure.

  3. Terry Parker: Finally, if bicyclists were in actuality subsidizing motorists, Sam Adams would not be requesting $24M in stimulus dollars specifically for bicycle infrastructure.

    You always obsess about the $24M while completely ignoring the fact that it’s part of a $847M proposal, and the vast vast majority of that proposal has to do with roads, bridges, sewers, water supply, housing for homeless and veterans . . . and since we all contribute to the federal budget that will fund all those roadway improvements, yes, we are all subsidizing motorists whether we’re cyclists, pedestrians or motorists.

    Why don’t you bookmark
    this as a reminder?

    The first section mentions the bicycle boulevards as one of 12 items, all but 1 of which are roadway improvements.

  4. More Somethings Special for Christmas Eve

    I found this little gift in a paper by Wendal Cox on all the ways that we subsidize transit: Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation , a publication of U.S. Department of Transportatio, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

    So let me re-gift this to all the Portland Transport readers.

    Highlights (speaking only of Federal subsidies):
    * passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passenger miles, averaging $186.35

    * transit received the second highest net federal subsidy, second to passenger rail, averaging $118.26 in year

    * Autos, pickups, and vans paid on average about $2.03 per thousand passenger-miles more each year than their allocated cost.

    The above is cut & pasted from:
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation
    bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

    I posted the important stuff at: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

    Here is another (peer-reviewed) take on external costs and subsidies:
    GASOLINE AUTO — -5 to 28.4 cents per passenger- mile
    TRANSIT BUS ——33 to 57 cents per passenger- mile
    LIGHT RAIL———27 to 109 cents per passenger- mile
    HEAVY RAIL——–17 to 53 cents per passenger- mile
    Above is from: portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm based on the peer-reviewed article Should We Try To Get The Prices Right?, Mark Delucchi, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000

    A merry, joyous and healthy holiday to all…

    Thanks
    JK

  5. From the linked Streetsblog.net article:

    One example is all the free vehicle parking. All taxpayers and consumers pay for that through higher taxes and higher product costs

    I agree.

    Apparently as I’ve been told, Metro charges all people who park in its government-funded, tax-exempt (because we taxpayers pay for it) parking garage to pay for parking, up to and including the Metro Council members. That’s a good start (if it is true).

    Next should be TriMet. TriMet says they need to cut the budget, and here’s a recommendation: Terminate all of the leased park-and-ride lot agreements (these are usually movie theaters and churches who would otherwise have empty parking lots during the day…why should TriMet – and thus ME – subsidize them?) After that, then we move to TriMet’s owned park-and-ride lots. It’s fair that since I use TriMet “door to door” that I shouldn’t have to subsidize someone who parks their car at the 74th Avenue or Barbur Blvd. TC park-and-rides, and ride the expensive-to-operate 94 express bus. So those cars should pay $10/day to park, and pay a higher fare to ride the express bus. (The claim of higher costs comes directly from TriMet reports showing the boarding cost per route. Each express bus ranks near the bottom of the list.)

    Finally, let’s look at the massive vehicle fleets owned by TriMet, City of Portland, Metro, Multnomah County, etc. My building (in which I do not get free parking by my employer, by the way) sits atop a nice big city-owned parking structure, with half of one level occupied by city-owned vehicles that spend much of their time…well…parked. Why can’t those city employees do…well…what I do, and ride the bus? Considering that there is a TriMet bus stop right at the main entrance to the building, a MAX stop to open a block away, and a Streetcar stop beside my building?

    TriMet has their own little SUV parking lot near the 7th Avenue MAX station…which has always baffled me (especially the need for an SUV.) And on 17th Avenue…TriMet owns several lots on the west side of 17th Avenue that could be redeveloped but are instead…parking lots.

    So, I agree. Taxpayers ARE subsidizing a lot of parking lots and not by choice.

    Now…I know that’s not the intent of the article; the article just has its usual anti-car/pro-bike slant and they of course hate cars. Well…when I CHOOSE to shop at, say, Freddy’s, I CHOOSE to accept that Freddy’s has a parking lot (which I admittedly use) and that I pay for the cost of the parking lot (and the building, and the light bill, and the employees and their benefits and their vacation time, and their parking too) as part of the goods I purchase. There’s a big difference between where I CHOOSE to shop, and the governmental agencies who engage in providing unnecessary free parking and ownership of vehicles.

    For the bicyclists out there who don’t want to subsidize companies that provide free parking, there are plenty of businesses that don’t provide parking. Feel free to shop there. It’s YOUR RIGHT as an American. This isn’t the Soviet Union where you are told what you can buy and where you can buy it. If those stores don’t carry what you want, stop bitching at me – tell the shopowners to carry the goods that you want to buy. And if they refuse, then it’s your CHOICE to buy it from a store that, egad!, provides parking to serve other customers!

    BTW, I don’t bitch and complain when a store (like Freddy’s, or Target, or IKEA, etc.) provides a bike rack (usually next to the front door, and even closer than the handicapped spaces!) for its bicycling customers. The Hedges Creek Shopping Center in Tualatin is a great example of a center that has not one, but TWO bicycling facilities. Unfortunately, they are empty all of the time (despite most major Tualatin streets having well maintained bike lanes, and a bike path system in the city core area.)

  6. Many thanks to JK – He always has the right factual data on hand. It appears as if the only ones receiving actual Christmas gifts, re-gifted or otherwise, are transit passengers and freeloading pedal pushers. The majority of the working class simply gets a lump of coal in their stockings in the form of a tax bill to subsidize those two special interest groups.

    Jeff said: You always obsess about the $24M while completely ignoring the fact that it’s part of a $847M proposal, and the vast vast majority of that proposal has to do with roads, bridges…

    And motorists while pay fuel taxes, license and registration fees to use those roads and bridges, the freeloading pedal pushers also use those same roads and bridges without charge, in addition to using the specialized bicycle infrastructure (that is in many cases off limits to drivers) that Sam wants the $24M to expand. Definitely a double standard!

  7. Erik, I think the point regarding free parking is that most cities have parking minimums – that is, people are not given a choice to shop at a place without parking, because codes don’t allow such a place.

    Certainly, many (most?) businesses would still choose to provide parking, but the requirement does indeed distort the market somewhat.

    And Terry, thanks for feeding us your standard diet of catch words and phrases! It certainly made my Christmas more merry!

  8. Terry, the article mentions free parking, period – not just that on the street. Who do you think pays for the parking lots at Fred Meyer and WalMart and soforth?

    People who walked or biked there, who aren’t using that infrastructure. It’s a bundling problem, in classic economics terms, where certain costs are included in the price of goods for everyone, even though they only benefit some consumers.

    Moreover, according to the Oregon Tax Expenditure report, we’re giving up $883 MILLION every two years because we exempt cars from taxation, as well as shifting $144.9 MILLION in costs to other users. Page 263. So it’s a BILLION dollar subsidy (it’s not the only one in the report about how we subsidize drivers), and you’re worried about something that’s 2.4% of that (as a side note, we only spent less than a million dollars last time anyone provided actual numbers).

    Sigh.

  9. Evan Manvel…we exempt cars from taxation, as well as shifting $144.9 MILLION in costs to other users. Page 263. So it’s a BILLION dollar subsidy…
    JK:
    Choosing to let people keep their money is NOT A SUBSIDY.

    If it were a subsidy, it is a subsidy to MOST people as most people have a car because cars are convenient and economical. People discovered that 80 years ago when they abandoned mass transit for cars – with reason.

    Thanks
    JK

  10. Evan Manvel asked:: “Who do you think pays for the parking lots at Fred Meyer and WalMart and soforth?”

    Why the customers of course. The cost of parking is included in the products purchased at these stores. However it is “good” business for these stores to have this parking since businesses, even small businesses rely on their customers arriving by motor vehicle. A parking lot full of cars usually means the business is doing well. WalMart for example is one of the few businesses in this recession that has seen an increase in business. Moreover, the businesses that have parking lots pay property taxes on them and therefore they are not subsidized by taxpayers. The choice to shop or not to shop at any of these stores is up to the individual. However, based on the number of cars in their parking lots, Evan, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    As for the report you refer to, once again you as do other bicyclists cherry pick data to make your case. Taken in its entirety, the automobile is good for employment, business and taxes in this country. One in every ten jobs is tied to the auto industry, and both the business and individuals that rely on the automobile pay taxes. Furthermore, the automobile itself is taxed (often over t taxed) with license and registration fees, and automobile usage is taxed by way of the gas tax. It is he freeloading pedal pushers that are not taxed, and who are subsidized by siphoning off and poaching taxes from the automobi

  11. “Choosing to let people keep their money is NOT A SUBSIDY.”

    So giving a developer who constructs TOD a tax credit, therefor allowing him to keep more of his money, isn’t actually a subsidy? Glad to hear you say so. That billy guy has been going around here recently and claiming that it was. If you see him, you might want to clear that up…

  12. jim karlock Says:

    If it were a subsidy, it is a subsidy to MOST people as most people have a car because cars are convenient and economical.

    So there is nothing intrinsically wrong with subsidies, you just want to choose which subsidies you approve of? You want to choose for others? That sounds a lot like what some here would call “socialism” — except you haven’t been elected to anything, have you?

    People discovered that 80 years ago when they abandoned mass transit for cars – with reason.

    You really need to get out more. There are a whole lot of people who haven’t abandoned mass transit at all. You, personally, don’t like riding mass transit and prefer your car. Fine. Why not just stick to that?

  13. Let’s not stray into the personal… “billy” hasn’t been with us for awhile, so I have reasonable confidence that the identity episode is behind us, and for the record, JK got 11.24% of the vote in his last election, which although not a huge percentage, is still slightly better than results of other candidates I have personally favored in past elections.

  14. Unit wrote: Erik, I think the point regarding free parking is that most cities have parking minimums – that is, people are not given a choice to shop at a place without parking, because codes don’t allow such a place.

    I know plenty of businesses here in Portland that do not provide parking for their customers.

  15. Evan Manvel wrote: according to the Oregon Tax Expenditure report, we’re giving up $883 MILLION every two years because we exempt cars from taxation

    How are cars exempt from taxation? Exactly how should they be taxed, and more importantly – why?

    I’m pretty darn sure that I pay quite a few taxes on my motor vehicle. I pay a license fee every few years for the privilege to drive a car; a registration fee to allow my car to drive on public roads; a motor fuels tax which pays for the use of the road…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *