Governments in the US spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services for motor-vehicle users. To pay for these infrastructure and services governments collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees. The basic objective of this paper is to compare these government expenditures with the corresponding user tax and fee payments in the US. At the outset I argue that the such comparisons tell us something about the equity but not necessarily the economic efficiency of highway financing. I then present four different ways one might tally up government expenditures and user payments, depending on the extent to which one wishes to count ''indirect'' expenditures (e.g., on prosecuting car thieves) and non-targeted general-tax payments (e.g., severance taxes on oil). I make a comprehensive analysis of all possible expenditures and payments, and then compare them according to three of the four ways of counting expenditures and payments. The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any ''external'' costs of motor-vehicle use.) The extent to which one counts indirect government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use is a key factor in the comparison.
Governments in the US spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services for motor-vehicle users. To pay for these infrastructure and services governments collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees. The basic objective of this paper is to compare these government expenditures with the corresponding user tax and fee payments in the US. At the outset I argue that the such comparisons tell us something about the equity but not necessarily the economic efficiency of highway financing. I then present four different ways one might tally up government expenditures and user payments, depending on the extent to which one wishes to count ''indirect'' expenditures (e.g., on prosecuting car thieves) and non-targeted general-tax payments (e.g., severance taxes on oil). I make a comprehensive analysis of all possible expenditures and payments, and then compare them according to three of the four ways of counting expenditures and payments. The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any ''external'' costs of motor-vehicle use.) The extent to which one counts indirect government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use is a key factor in the comparison.
Governments in the US spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services for motor-vehicle users. To pay for these infrastructure and services governments collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees. The basic objective of this paper is to compare these government expenditures with the corresponding user tax and fee payments in the US. At the outset I argue that the such comparisons tell us something about the equity but not necessarily the economic efficiency of highway financing. I then present four different ways one might tally up government expenditures and user payments, depending on the extent to which one wishes to count ''indirect'' expenditures (e.g., on prosecuting car thieves) and non-targeted general-tax payments (e.g., severance taxes on oil). I make a comprehensive analysis of all possible expenditures and payments, and then compare them according to three of the four ways of counting expenditures and payments. The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any ''external'' costs of motor-vehicle use.) The extent to which one counts indirect government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use is a key factor in the comparison.
Federal, state, and local governments spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services, such as highway patrol, for motor-vehicle users (see report #7 in the author's social-cost series). To pay for these infrastructure and service expenditures governments do not charge motor-vehicle users a single, explicit, comprehensive price for the use of roadways and motor-vehicle-related services, but rather collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees ranging from road tolls to motor-fuel taxes to general-fund tax receipts. Some of these taxes and fees, such as road tolls, function like prices on the use of public motor-vehicle infrastructure and service (MVIS); some, like sales tax receipts, are purely general taxes unrelated to motor-vehicle use; and some, like fuel-excise taxes, may be said to be "in-between" a price on the use of MVIS and a general tax on all commodities.
Planning agencies, analysts, non-profit organizations, regulatory and legislative bodies, and other organizations develop long-range local, state, regional, and national transportation plans. These plans typically comprise two or more alternatives, or scenarios. These alternatives have different financial costs and different impacts on travel, air quality, noise, safety, and so on. To evaluate and compare these alternatives with their different impacts, planners and analysts often use social cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which estimates the dollar value of all of the major impacts of the plan on society. With social CBA, the different plan alternatives can be compared by the single metric of net dollar benefits. In support of social CBAs of transportation plans, I have developed an Excel Workbook, called the "Social Cost Calculator," or SCC. The SCC estimates costs for up to five different transportation scenarios for up to six different geographic areas, in the following cost categories: * public-sector goods and services (e.g., highway maintenance and repair, highway patrol * climate-change * external costs of oil use (e.g., supply disruptions, military defense of oil supplies) * fuel cost (resource cost, taxes, producer surplus, and costs of delay) * noise * accidents * parking * travel time and congestion * air pollution from motor-vehicle exhaust * air pollution from the upstream lifecycle of fuels * air pollution from road dust, brake wear, and tire wear For the most part, the categories listed above comprise all of the major social costs of motor-vehicle use except those that are efficiently paid or borne directly by motor-vehicle users such as vehicle costs, most operating costs, and some time costs. I exclude those efficiently priced costs for two reasons: i) because they are priced, they are relatively easy to estimate; and ii) because they are more or less efficiently priced, they are of no concern in an analysis of efficient use of transportation systems, and arguably are of only secondary concern in a social CBA. (They are of secondary concern in a social CBA if one believes that net private benefits per mile are likely to be similar across transportation scenarios, and consequently that differences in net social benefits among transportation scenarios are likely to be determined by differences in unpriced or inefficiently priced costs.) Many but by no means all of the social costs listed above and estimated here are what economists call "external" costs, which can be understood to be inefficiently priced costs of motor-vehicle use (for details, see report # 9 in the UCD social-cost series). Air pollution, noise, congestion, climate change and some of accident, public-sector, oil-use, and fuel-use costs are externalities. Costs that are not directly related to motor-vehicle use (e.g., highway capital costs and defense expenditures), costs that are unpriced but not necessarily inefficiently so (e.g., bundled costs such as parking), and costs that are priced but not necessarily perfectly (e.g., highway maintenance costs and fuel costs), are social costs and may or may not be denominated "external" costs depending on one's tastes. Social costs, which include all external costs plus all non-external costs, are used in social CBA, because in social CBA one wishes to compare all of the costs and benefits to society, for each alternative. Social and external costs also are relevant to pricing and hence are useful in analyses of efficient use of transportation modes. Thus, social and external costs inform our comparison of alternative transportation plans and our policies for efficient use of transportation systems. This report documents the data and methods used in the SCC, and applies the SCC to a case study of Sacramento. The Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) develops alternative transportation plans for Sacramento as part of its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Here, we apply the SCC to estimate the social costs of five different MTP alternatives (four for the year 2025, and a year-2000 baseline), for the six counties in the SACOG planning area. As part of this case study, parameter values pertinent to Sacramento are documented throughout. Note:
Planning agencies, analysts, non-profit organizations, regulatory and legislative bodies, and other organizations develop long-range local, state, regional, and national transportation plans. These plans typically comprise two or more alternatives, or scenarios. These alternatives have different financial costs and different impacts on travel, air quality, noise, safety, and so on. To evaluate and compare these alternatives with their different impacts, planners and analysts often use social cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which estimates the dollar value of all of the major impacts of the plan on society. With social CBA, the different plan alternatives can be compared by the single metric of net dollar benefits.In support of social CBAs of transportation plans, I have developed an Excel Workbook, called the "Social Cost Calculator," or SCC. The SCC estimates costs for up to five different transportation scenarios for up to six different geographic areas, in the following cost categories:* public-sector goods and services (e.g., highway maintenance and repair, highway patrol * climate-change * external costs of oil use (e.g., supply disruptions, military defense of oil supplies) * fuel cost (resource cost, taxes, producer surplus, and costs of delay) * noise * accidents * parking * travel time and congestion * air pollution from motor-vehicle exhaust * air pollution from the upstream lifecycle of fuels * air pollution from road dust, brake wear, and tire wearFor the most part, the categories listed above comprise all of the major social costs of motor-vehicle use except those that are efficiently paid or borne directly by motor-vehicle users such as vehicle costs, most operating costs, and some time costs. I exclude those efficiently priced costs for two reasons: i) because they are priced, they are relatively easy to estimate; and ii) because they are more or less efficiently priced, they are of no concern in an analysis of efficient use of transportation systems, and arguably are of only secondary concern in a social CBA. (They are of secondary concern in a social CBA if one believes that net private benefits per mile are likely to be similar across transportation scenarios, and consequently that differences in net social benefits among transportation scenarios are likely to be determined by differences in unpriced or inefficiently priced costs.)Many but by no means all of the social costs listed above and estimated here are what economists call "external" costs, which can be understood to be inefficiently priced costs of motor-vehicle use (for details, see report # 9 in the UCD social-cost series). Air pollution, noise, congestion, climate change and some of accident, public-sector, oil-use, and fuel-use costs are externalities. Costs that are not directly related to motor-vehicle use (e.g., highway capital costs and defense expenditures), costs that are unpriced but not necessarily inefficiently so (e.g., bundled costs such as parking), and costs that are priced but not necessarily perfectly (e.g., highway maintenance costs and fuel costs), are social costs and may or may not be denominated "external" costs depending on one's tastes.Social costs, which include all external costs plus all non-external costs, are used in social CBA, because in social CBA one wishes to compare all of the costs and benefits to society, for each alternative. Social and external costs also are relevant to pricing and hence are useful in analyses of efficient use of transportation modes. Thus, social and external costs inform our comparison of alternative transportation plans and our policies for efficient use of transportation systems.This report documents the data and methods used in the SCC, and applies the SCC to a case study of Sacramento. The Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) develops alternative transportation plans for Sacramento as part of its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Here, we apply the SCC to estimate the social costs of five different MTP alternatives (four for the year 2025, and a year-2000 baseline), for the six counties in the SACOG planning area. As part of this case study, parameter values pertinent to Sacramento are documented throughout. Note:
Federal, state, and local governments spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services, such as highway patrol, for motor-vehicle users (see report #7 in the author's social-cost series). To pay for these infrastructure and service expenditures governments do not charge motor-vehicle users a single, explicit, comprehensive price for the use of roadways and motor-vehicle-related services, but rather collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees ranging from road tolls to motor-fuel taxes to general-fund tax receipts. Some of these taxes and fees, such as road tolls, function like prices on the use of public motor-vehicle infrastructure and service (MVIS); some, like sales tax receipts, are purely general taxes unrelated to motor-vehicle use; and some, like fuel-excise taxes, may be said to be "in-between" a price on the use of MVIS and a general tax on all commodities.
The author of this report, one in a series documenting the social cost of motor-vehicle use in the U.S., examines the costs of motor vehicle goods and services priced in the private sector. This includes the cost of the vehicles themselves, fuel and oil, parts and maintenance. He concludes that the total estimated cost of motor vehicle-related goods and services priced in the private sector in 1991 ranged from approximately $830 to $940 billion. The most costly items are the vehicles themselves, their maintenance and repair, and travel time. The author's estimates include costs of private commercial and residential parking, travel time that displaces paid work, costs of motor-vehicle accidents, and the deduction of taxes and fees. The author notes that most of the cost items considered show up in estimates by other analysts of the cost of owning and operating motor vehicles. However, his analysis also includes several items that are not usually included. These include compensated work travel time, the overhead expenses of business, commercial and government fleets, and accident costs paid for by a responsible party.
We have classified and estimated the social cost of motor vehicle use in the United States on the basis of 1990-91 data. The analysis provides a conceptual framework for viewing social costs, develops analytical methods and data sources, and presents some detailed estimates of some of the costs. The data, methods, functions, and estimates of this analysis can help analysts and policymakers evaluate the costs of transportation projects, establish efficient prices for transportation services, and prioritize research and funding. This analysis cannot, however, tell us precisely what we should do to improve our transportation system. Not only are many of the estimates too generic and uncertain, but, more important, society cares at least as much about equity, opportunity, and justice as it does about economic efficiency. At the end of the day, a total social-cost analysis contributes only modestly to but one of several societal objectives for transportation.
Discusses the social cost of motor vehicle use in the US, drawing on secondary 1990/91 data. Analysis provides a conceptual framework for viewing social costs, develops analytical methods & data sources, & presents detailed estimates of some costs. The data, methods, functions, & estimates of this analysis can help analysts & policymakers evaluate the costs of transportation projects, establish efficient prices for transportation services, & prioritize research & funding. 2 Tables. Adapted from the source document.
In our analysis of the social cost of motor-vehicle use, many of our data sources, methods, and estimates of cost apply in the first instance to all classes of motor vehicles. For example, we are given, or can estimate from primary data, the following: - total government expenditures on the highways - the air-pollution damage cost of emissions from gasoline service stations - the air-pollution damage cost of emissions of PM10 from re-entrained road dust - highway-patrol expenditures - the cost of garages and parking spaces - the cost of oil spills, per barrel of oil All of these costs pertain to all motor vehicles: all autos, trucks, and buses. Although it can be interesting to estimate the cost of all motor-vehicle use, it typically will be more useful to estimate the cost of different classes of vehicles or of different fuel types, because analysts, policy makers, and regulators typically are interested in specific classes of vehicles, and specific fuels, rather than all motor-vehicles as a group. (For example, pollution regulations are set for individual classes of vehicles, not for all motor vehicles as a class.) Thus, it is useful to carry the analysis of total social cost a step further, and take a cost that initially applies to all motor-vehicles and apportion it to specific vehicle and fuel classes. This report develops such "allocation factors," which can be used to apportion or disaggregate a total cost to specific vehicle and fuel classes.
In this report, the authors propose a dual-transportation network and community that would accommodate the preferences for auto-mobility and single-family homes,yet also offer much safer and cleaner, more pleasant and more socially integrated environment than what is commonly proposed in transportation and land use plans. A city with two universally accessible but completely separate and independent transportation networks is proposed. One network is for low-speed lightweight modes (LLMs) and the other is for fast-moving heavy vehicles (FHSVs). The authors review the economics and advantages of such a design, as well as the impacts on transportation problems. They conclude with a discussion regarding the social,political, and consumer factors determining the success of the proposed design.
Analyses of the full social cost of motor vehicle use in the US often estimate an "oil import premium" that includes the military cost of defending oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Estimates of this cost have ranged from essentially zero to upwards of a $1 per gallon (about $0.25 per liter). In this paper, we attempt to narrow this range, by carefully answering the question: "If the US highway transportation sector did not use oil, how much would the US federal government reduce its military commitment in the Persian Gulf?" We work towards our answer in five steps, accounting for interests not related to oil, the interests of other oil-consuming countries, the interests of producers apart from the interests of consumers, and the interests of non-highway users of oil. We estimate that were there no oil in the Persian Gulf, then US combined peacetime and wartime defense expenditures might be reduced in the long run by roughly $27–$73 billion per year (in 2004 dollars), of which roughly $6–$25 billion annually ($0.03–$0.15 per gallon or $0.01–$0.04 per liter) is attributable to motor-vehicle use.
