That quote works with anything though: Did you know the US subsidizes both fossil fuels and renewable energy? And both public and private transportation? Hardcore libertarians often think all subsidies are bad. That anything supported by subsidies should be cut off and let dwindle or die. But everyone else acknowledges subsidies are a valuable tool. And we know they are usually blunt tools, with unexpected side effects. And we know politicians of all parties will use them where they can. So if we task a step back, will notice the public and private transportation subsidies don't cancel each other out, and the fossil and renewable subsidies don't cancel either. Instead, were subsidizing nearly all energy production, and most transportation. Of course there are arguments to be made about how, and how much, and who gets more. But I think energy and transportation are some of the best things to subsidize.The problem with the subsidies currently propping up driving is that they’re often hidden: If they were made more explicit, policymakers would likely rearrange their priorities.
The problem with the subsidies currently propping up fossil fuels is that they’re often hidden: If they were made more explicit, policymakers would likely rearrange their priorities.
The problem with the subsidies currently propping up renewable energy is that they’re often hidden: If they were made more explicit, policymakers would likely rearrange their priorities.
The problem with the subsidies currently propping up public transportation is that they’re often hidden: If they were made more explicit, policymakers would likely rearrange their priorities.
Those are the arguments that I was hoping to elicit. I didn't post it because I agree with everything in the article - for example, I don't share the libertarian stance at all and the paragraph on how airlines supposedly price routes is downright ignorant. I posted it because it made me wonder what a better balance of subsidies and taxes could look like. I agree that mobility and accessibility are important to subsidize and to make possible, but building roads is not the most efficient thing to subsidize. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns and in the case of road infrastructure, more investments can even lead to worse traffic (in 2 different ways). I mean, I live in the Netherlands, essentially public transport nirvana; if I pick any city less than 100 miles away, getting there by car or by train is roughly equal in cost and time. That is in no small part because driving is heavily taxed and public transport is heavily subsidized. But it is an entirely different tax balance than in the US, and I think that this article rightfully points out the disproportionate cost that road travel in the US has compared to driver taxes.Of course there are arguments to be made about how, and how much, and who gets more. But I think energy and transportation are some of the best things to subsidize.
Yeah... I think roads are critical infrastructure, and therefore just need to be funded properly. Period. Funding cannot be linked to subsidies, or use fees, or other fluctuating funding sources. Build the roads. Pay for them. Done. Now, to offset that cost, you can raise funds in other ways - like licensing fees, sales tax on vehicles and fuel, etc - but it should not be linked to road funding. Politicians could say, "Roads cost us $5bn a year, and with my proposal to tax milk, we could offset that cost by as much as $1bn." It can seem like pulling money from one pocket and putting it into another, but it isn't because it stops road funding from facing cuts or deficits. Work from the base assumption that roads will always cost money, and never pay for themselves, but they are necessary for a functioning nation. Highway funding needs to be seen as Customer Service is at tech companies: It's always going to cost money. You may be able of offset that by offering T-shirts for sale, or something, but it's just a cost of doing business. I posted it because it made me wonder what a better balance of subsidies and taxes could look like. I agree that mobility and accessibility are important to subsidize and to make possible, but building roads is not the most efficient thing to subsidize.
The tricky part, in the US at least, is that the "Interstate Highway System" is actually the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways": The publication in 1955 of the General Location of National System of Interstate Highways, informally known as the Yellow Book, mapped out what became the Interstate System.[16] Assisting in the planning was Charles Erwin Wilson, who was still head of General Motors when President Eisenhower selected him as Secretary of Defense in January 1953. The initial funding came partially from the military budget: The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent. It was expected that the money would be generated through new taxes on fuel, automobiles, trucks, and tires. As a matter of practice, the federal portion of the cost of the Interstate Highway System has been paid for by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. There aren't many examples where the defense budget is robbed for the public benefit, but the interstate freeway system is one. And as soon as you start talking about the infrastructure that we created and maintain so that we can better mobilize our troops against the red menace, the general public gets that face-scrunchy look and the Libtards start screaming about John Galt'n'shit.The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[15] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
The addition of the term "defense" in the act's title was for two reasons: First, some of the original cost was diverted from defense funds. Secondly, most U.S. Air Force bases have a direct link to the system. The purpose was to provide access in order to defend them during an attack. All of these links were in the original plans, although some, such as Wright Patterson were not connected up in the 1950s, but only somewhat later.
All true. But I was responding to OP's question of how could this be done better? (assuming an ideal situation) rather than proposing how the existing system could be improved. States' rights are gonna make any sort of national program pretty much impossible. So the US's roads will continue to decay rapidly, and then our failing bridges and potholes will be lauded as "how we beat the Chinese invasion forces!" when they finally attack us. :-)