Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1468Road Fascism

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Nov 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
      > before. Please explain that to me!

      Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.

      And no one is charged to use them.

      There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs of new
      roads and repair. The rest comes out of the general fund. Of
      course, the tax doesn't touch our defense spending for wars for oil
      and so forth.

      The roads are not just land but improvements. Those improvements are
      expensive. And since the gas tax only covers 1/3 of the costs, much
      comes out of the general taxpayers funds. It is socialist/fascist--
      not a free market deal. Now, even though, for instance, the 1998
      Highway Bill was 219 billion, the largest ever by a factor of 4 and
      that is just the Feds, it doesn't really capture the lay out of
      capital over at least a hundred years on our road system. And, most
      importantly, does not figure what are roads are worth as a system.

      It should further be pointed out that cost and value for use are two
      completely different things. Example. You own a home. If you tell
      me I can live in the home for my pro rata share of 1/3 the cost of a
      new room and repairs to the living room--but nothing more AND there
      are to be 100 people living their, my pro rata share is small. And
      your house is full.

      This is the reason for gridlock, and for SUVs and rising gas milage
      despite better technology. It is the simple fact that roads are a
      HIGHLY subsidized part of our lives--far and away the
      largest "government" asset. We think nothing of the fact that our
      culture is dominated by roads now.

      But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
      percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
      The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
      studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
      years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
      women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
      I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
      socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
      the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
      time American families spred from their homes.

      Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
      small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
      are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
      but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
      the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
      pattern that cannot be sustained.

      My thing with this subsidy and transfer of wealth is that the roads
      as a monopoly is actaully a much larger subsidy then one would think
      at first blush. That is because the whole system has incredible
      economic meaning, from truckers to commuters who live in a rich area
      and work in a high density, poor area, further causing class
      differences between wealthy and poor, between thos living in low
      density areas and those living in high density areas. I think the
      whole system is worth about 10 trillion dollars, so even to provide
      roads at tolls with simple interest at mind would lead to 1 trillion
      in tolls, which comes done to thousands per American. This kind of
      cost reflection would drive down driving. We wouldn't as a culture
      be as apt to build large homes in the middle of no where and drive
      from them in 4,000 pound SUVs to return a 5 ounce video. This is an
      incredibly wasteful use of energy.

      Fascism is the only way to describe the politics of these roads--why
      we would want to continue a subsidy that is so short sighted from and
      ecological and economic standpoint.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic