Here is an example from Australia (heavily car dependent) http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2010/11/24/what-costs...

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-transportation/transportat...

Here, let's look at the actual budget for Texas: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Other_Pubs/Overview_Highway_Fund_...

Texas levies a 20 cent per gallon tax on gas and diesel, while the federal government levies an 18.4 cent tax for gas and 24.4 cents for diesel.

Over 2 years (the budget period for the state) the gas tax provided $4.55 billion for roadwork. However, 1/4 of the state gas tax revenue is diverted to education so the actual revenue is around $6.1 billion. Additionally, $6.9 billion of funding is provided from federal sources. This is roughly equivalent to the amount raised by the federal gas tax but also pays for things like airports. A further $2.7 billion is raised through registration fees, and other motor vehicle related taxes and fees.

In total the gas and motor vehicle related taxes pay for the entirety of the TxDOT budget plus they help subsidize the local school system to the tune of 3/4 of a billion per year.

"In Texas, [Mike Krusee, former chairman of the Texas House of Representatives Transportation Committee] said that, on average, it cost the state 20-30 cents per person per mile to build and maintain a road to the suburbs, yet drivers only pay on average 2-3 cents per mile through the gas tax, vehicles fees, etc.

"What we found was that no road that we built in Texas paid for itself," said Krusee. "None."

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2009/11/aga...

Gas taxes and other highway user fees pay less today than ever before.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/17/the-facts-about-transp...

It's questionable to me whether this is even a valid complaint. Road upkeep and maintenance is not always linearly proportional to gasoline consumption. Cars and trucks will idle more in the city than in the suburbs and thus increase gas use, but that's no excuse to demand a higher proportion of funds be used for those roads.

Besides which, at best this is a problem of car use subsidizing other car use, not of non-car tax revenues being misspent to subsidize road building.

It is a valid complaint. It's not about demanding that the funds be used for those roads; it's about the people who use roads being the ones who pay for them. That isn't currently the case.

Besides which, at best this is a problem of car use subsidizing other car use, not of non-car tax revenues being misspent to subsidize road building.

Since the gas tax is insufficient to meet Texas's road needs, cities and counties have been funding them from their general funds; that is, via property and sales taxes. They are only partially reimbursed by the state.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/aust...

Not so fast - you dont get to ignore diversions.

Also, you're ignoring other car-taxes, from registration, to sales tax (I don't know if Texas has both sales and gas taxes, but CA does), to sales tax on car stuff. (No cars, no sales tax on car stuff.)

Also, car use is pretty much universal, so there can't be a significant amount of money going from non-car users to car subsidies. It's car uses paying, even when it isn't labelled a "car tax".

"Mass transit" subsidies are mostly money from "not users".

Two "mistakes", both in the same direction....

Incidentally, registration fees are there to cover the cost of the beaurocracy overseeing the registration, the sales tax brings in about $235 million (based on 1 car per 2 people, replaced every 10 years, selling for $15,000). It might really be higher or lower, but its still going to be far less than the gas tax. And sales tax on car incidentals is going to be much less than that.

Also, the fact that there are more car users actually doesn't tell us anything about which way the net flow of money goes. If there are 10 times as many car users, but expenditures on roads is 20 times what it is on trains then there will be a fairly large flow of money from train users to car users. If spending on roads is only 5 times as much as on trains, there will be a fairly large flow in the other direction.

So may I suggest you consider the facts a bit more carefully the next time you try imputing dishonesty to your opponent?

Way to miss the point.

> Incidentally, registration fees are there to cover the cost of the beaurocracy overseeing the registration

They do more than that.

> sales tax brings in about $235 million (based on 1 car per 2 people, replaced every 10 years, selling for $15,000).

Cars are sold more often than every 10 years, the average new cost is more than $15k, and I wrote "car stuff" for a reason. There are a lot of taxed car stuff purchases other than "car sales". And, I didn't even mention other taxes on biz providing car services and purchases.

If you're going to argue that someone isn't properly accounting....

> Also, the fact that there are more car users actually doesn't tell us anything about which way the net flow of money goes

Net flow doesn't have the properties that your argument requires.

The subsidy argument says that folks who get deliveries by truck don't pay for the full cost of truck delivery in their direct payment for truck services. So, when a no-car-truck-delivery person pays a subsidy, they're actually just paying for the indirect truck-delivery costs.

And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, a huge fraction of the city costs for "cars" are required even if there isn't a single private car. Buses, "official vehicles", delivery trucks, and so on require roads. A lot of city road maintenance costs come from activities that have nothing to do with usage.

In short, you're assuming savings that can't happen.

My most frequent use of my car is a trip that takes 40 minutes through the city by car, and 2+ hours by bus/train. I would love it if the CTA managed to increase frequencies and fix all the slow zones on their track. It's just never going to happen.

Of course it's a chicken and egg scenario: it's difficult to argue for buses every 10 minutes if the current buses aren't anywhere near being used to capacity. And no one is going to start using the buses as long as they're on such a useless schedule.

I live in Vienna and there are few I can't reach within the city within about half an hour (buses/trams/subways often come in 3-5 minutes intervals too).

Within 45 minutes practically the whole city is covered.

Even in some Australian cities, where it is so much easier to cycle, people still drive. My sister who works a 5 min ride from work, takes longer to drive there, and she has to pay for parking, will never cycle.

As a Melbournite living in London, I can imagine a sharp uptake in public transport use back home if we had half of the infrastructure London has. The problem is that cities like Melbourne are serviced so badly at the moment that as you indicated driving is the default option even when it's slower.

Also, let's not forget brilliant strategies like implementing a city bike-sharing system without a corresponding change in bicycle helmet laws.

Actually, the post doesn't ignore the benefits of cars. It says for example that an SUV is a great option for a family of 6 going to the suburbs. Perhaps you had some other benefits in mind?

How many days can you feed your family on 2 bags of groceries? Gonna carry the new TV you just bought on the bus with you? I can't imagine doing normal shopping without a car.

4 of us actually live 2 blocks from the grocery store and I think someone gets a couple of bags every other day. The "10 bags of groceries" shopping trip is actually an effect of cars (and suburbanization). When cities are walkable, grocery stores are nearby too.

I think it's obvious that just like a family of 6 can't fit on a bicycle and would need a SUV to go to Florida, you'd need a big vehicle to get a TV home. Presumably, you don't buy a TV every week.

I live in a small town in the American midwest, considered very walkable, lots of bike lanes, etc.

We don't have smaller retail stores within walking distance. Instead we have big-box grocery stores like everywhere else.

We _used_ to have those but in the late 50s they were zoned out of existence.

I'm doing that just fine by using a tramway. And I'm not dead yet :) The good thing is that the hypermarket is only 3 tram stations away, and yes, there's a tram that goes by the hypermarket. Not to mention the 8AM-to-10PM grocery story that is open just outside my building, in case I need something very quick. That's what urbanization is all about. American suburbs don't fall into that category, they're more like Roman rural villas that will find a quick and painful death once the Barbarians "invade" (a stupid metaphor for when gasoline prices in the US will finally reach their normal levels).

And I carried my 43' plasma using a taxi, I agree. I paid the taxi driver 15 bucks (in my country's money), and he even helped me carry it to my building's front-door.

If you visit a city like New York, you'll notice that everything is zoned a bit differently; heck, it looks like it hasn't been zoned at all. Most residential buildings have a store of some kind in the first floor. Consequently, in a city with intermingled commercial and residential buildings, you're never more than a block or three from a grocery or a drug store, and generally never more than a block from a coffee shop or a deli.

Doing your grocery shopping via mass transit is insane. That's why in a city where 75% of the population uses mass transit as their primary form of transportation, you don't. You just walk across the the street.

Zoning originally came about for a few reasons. One was that industrial pollution was a serious issue and people wanted that away from other types of land use. The other was the rise of the car. Zoning has allowed places to require minimum lot sizes or state that mixed-use isn't allowed. One of the reasons we have so few walkable communities in the U.S. (even small ones like old towns used to be) is that zoning doesn't permit it. Because of this, areas that are walkable and are mixed-use are extremely expensive to live in.

Zoning a required minimum number of parking spots is indeed a terrible thing. Back where I went to college, that was a major headache for every business around campus. A bar was blocked from expanding because it couldn't acquire enough parking spots (and you want people driving to a bar why?), and the public library was required to put in a three story car park across the street when it renovated, demolishing a half a block of shops and apartments. This despite being a block and a half from a seven story car park which was never fully filled.

New York, on the other hand, doesn't seem to give a flying fig about parking. You drive, it's your own problem.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/01/06/times-architecture-cri...

1-3 depending on what I buy. Fortunately both my girlfriend and I walk past a couple of different grocery stores, fish mongers and vegetable stands, on our way home from work, so it's never a problem to drop in and pick up anything we happen to need.

Gonna carry the new TV you just bought on the bus with you?

Nope. Most likely I'll get it delivered to my front door (same with furniture and other similarly sized purchases). If for some reason that isn't an option, I'll call a taxi. Fortunately I buy TVs very rarely.

I can't imagine doing normal shopping without a car.

Are TV's regularly part of your "normal shopping"?

It's much, much better for you to pick the items you need on the internet, or in a showroom, and have them delivered; the delivery round will be much more energy-efficient, serving multiple customers in one go with one vehicle. We are slowly getting there, one item at a time (first books/cds, then electronics, then nappies, then then then...). The main stumbling block (people who want to check the horse's mouth before buying it) is really not a problem in the age of precise mechanization, food standards and cheap shipping.

I do my grocery shopping online, most of the time.

Now I don't buy a fridge everyday, but I've had to get enough large items over the last 10 years for the house to make the pickup truck worth it (when I first got the truck I was picking up some 2x4s, couple sheets of drywall, etc, about every couple weeks -- finished the basement, built a shed, etc, buy buying a couple pieces at a time).

There are definitely drawbacks, however, most of the large items, and the bulk of the groceries, can be done with an online order today. Smaller items can be picked up while out. (No regular jobs here - all independent business, contracting, etc.)

It would be harder if this were a two adults-two children situation and the parents both worked 9-5 jobs. The kids would be more dependent, and it would be tough for everyone to hit the work/school schedule exactly. However, it wouldn't be impossible.

Last time I lived in a city, there were no reasonably priced grocery stores within walking distance, just tons of pizza shops and fast food. I live in the suburbs now. I buy more groceries per trip and eat healthier now -- I'm not tempted to eat out instead of revisit a grocery store when I'm out of food every few days.

I moved my 42" TV in my sedan because it was safer there than in the moving truck.

Even when I lived in the suburbs, there were grocery stores at that distance. It just never occurred to me that one could bike to the store and buy stuff, I always drove until I tried using the bike. I think the problem is more psychological than reasoned.

The nearest big supermarket is about 30 minutes walk away, or about 5 minutes by scooter, somewhat longer by bicycle (owing to a road that bicycles aren't allowed on). There's a bus that goes directly to it every 15 minutes, but it doesn't really save time, only effort.

I can't imagine only visiting a grocery store every few days, not least because I like my food fresh, particularly for baked items. Having to plan ahead for meals also kills some spontaneity. Knowing that you're 5 minutes away from buying anything you need, for a trivial transport cost, and having no concern for traffic (owing to scooter agility and filtering), is liberating.

That doesn't make much sense. The shop is responsible for whatever happens to the stuff they deliver. If they damaged it, they'd have to repair it at no extra cost. Using your own car, on the other hand, puts the liability on you.

As for moving 42" TV in a sedan being safer for the TV, one, I doubt that, two, I'm more concerned about the driver than the TV. I know, odd.

How often would you say you buy a new TV? Making transportation decisions based on a once-in-a-10-year purchase isn't that rational. Plus, you could just have the TV delivered.

Why would you need a car for shopping in a city?

Those benefits will go the way of the dodo once all the externalities will finally go into gasoline prices, at least in the US. Right now the EU I think does it better, it tries to inhibit owning a car by taxing gasoline prices extensively, while the US has chosen to start and fight apparently useless wars just to keep those gasoline prices under control.

And before I get accused of being a conspiracy freak just for stating the obvious, just remember that Japan's forays into SE Asia and Germany's desperate try to put its hands on Caspian Sea oil reserves during WW2 were made because of the exact same reasons: control of natural resources.

What it originally tried to inhibit was the depletion of oil; most EU members introduced it 30 or 40 years ago, during the oil-shock period. Nowadays gasoline taxation is just that, a tax, and a profitable one: it's grown to be one of the largest income items for most states.

(and if you think the various Middle-East wars were fought to keep oil prices under control, you're sorely mistaken; they were fought to maintain oil availability for corporations to exploit. Big difference.)

Could you elaborate?

I'm not saying this is a negative thing (in theory it's quite nice), but in practice it's just another way to help car-makers.

Most countries also dish out subsidies directly to struggling car-makers; companies like Renault and FIAT are seen as "national champions" and treated accordingly -- although this is now illegal under EU competition law, nobody complains because every manufacturer based in Europe will have enjoyed some "public love" at some point. After all, car manufacturing still employs, directly or indirectly, a lot of people.