An article on an American website asked a question which has long intrigued me: why does the Right favour roads given they require a massive subsidy from the state as well as the direct intervention of government in order to be built, and yet is suspicious of public transport spending? The article, by Alex Marshall, at http://www.governing.com/articles/0804trans.htm argues that building roads is a manifestation of state power and that they require some $150bn of state funding annually, enough to wage a war on Iraq.
Marshall points out that a whole host of right wing think tanks in the US lobby strongly for increased spending on roads, while simultaneously trying to kill off public transport systems, arguing they are inefficent and expensive. In trying to work out why the Right He asks a leading lobbyist, Robert Poole, why his Reason Foundation supports roads given its general dislike of government involvement. Poole is completely flummoxed: "I'd never thought about it that way", he says, and is unable to give a coherent answer, arguing that they are not anarchists seeking to allow anyone to build competing roads everywhere.
I remember asking pretty much the same question of Digby Jones at a press conference when he was head of the CBI. I questioned why the CBI was always asking for more money to be spent on transport when generally it was constantly lobbying for reduced government spending.Much to my pleasure, he totally lost his rag and spoke for 10 minutes without really answering the question. There is indeed a contradiction. As Marshall points out, 'our national road system would never have been built if every street were required to pay for itself'.
Indeed, one could argue that many small country roads are totally uneconomic by any criteria and should be closed down, in the same way that railway branch lines should be shut. Or they should be allowed to decline with no maintenance, leading to the imposition of 20 MPH speed limits, as happens on little used parts of the railways.
More widely, though, Marshall raised a fundamental point. What is it about roads that attracts the Right? Surely they must, by now, realise that the freedom afforded by the car is illusory, since, as usage rises, the extra societal costs of more people getting on to the road outweigh by far the benefits. And the simplistic view that roadbuilding is the answer has been widely discredited. There is a gaping intellectual gap in the Right's thinking which environmentalists and public transport supporters should be more adept at exploiting.
Why are roads favoured by the right and trains by socialists?
Sunday, 6 April 2008
posted by Christian Wolmar at 06:44
21 Comments:
Well I was in the States for the first time at the end of last year and it amazed me the mentality that they have where if they run out of road, they simply build another motorway on top of the existing one or add more lanes - and don't batter the proverbial eyelid about doing so. Although I am a passionate supporter of the railways, the fact of the matter is I live in rural Perthshire, where my local branch to the main line at Perth/Dundee is now an overgrown ruin thanks to Dr. Beeching. As a result I am a reluctant motorist to get to work because the bus service is so dismal. It's OK saying run the rural roads down and screw motorists into the ground with punitive fuel taxes and plough more investment into the railways -which only serve major population centres. But in rural areas cars and driving are a necessary evil.
Rapid - not sure this is quite the point of the question Christian asks (although your point itself is entirely valid) - but essentially you are saying there are social reasons to maintain your little used remote road - indeed - but there would have been social reasons to maintain little used railways - but the state did not want to make the expenditure. In theory you could allow little used roads to deteriorate back to broken down tracks on the basis that you could not afford to maintain them. It's just a political decision one way or the other I suppose for the people who control public expenditure.
Christian - on your original point I think the issue lies buried in the right's obsessions with collective union power (a battle they have largely won so they are living in the past here too) - public transport systems rely on an essentially collectivist approach to all operational aspects, which are vulnerable to actions from groups of workers. This fills the right with great fear. A road only requires collective action in planning and payment, (and maintenance I suppose), once built it permits individualistic behaviour to run free.
I once had this sort of discussion with a relative who was a surveyor, and subscribed to a ‘right wing economists’ view of the world. He stated clearly to me that his view was that all roads should be toll roads with fees designed to recoup the cost of construction and repair. He accepted that most would never get built on this basis – and thus it should be the state who paid for the original construction, somewhat weakening his point I thought!
D
Good point, D. I know that similar fears about union powers were definitely one of the drivers of rail privatisation, although of course the Tories never stated that publicly. So I think you are certainly on the right track in that respect, though again, the Right will never admit openly that this is one of their motivations.
This post has been removed by the author.
I often get subjected to lectures from a certain group of individuals to the effect that motorists pay for the roads they use many times over in the form of "motoring taxes". Usually this leads to their conclusion that either cyclists such as myself therefore have no right to be on the road, or that said taxes should be spent on building more roads. It's no use try to explain to them that they're not actually paying a road user charge, they're paying duty similar to import duty or stamp duty.
My point is that someone who believes their right to road space is something that is bought and paid for through such fees will not accept the argument that roads are subsidised by government in the same way as, say, the railway network.
Parkey - you are absolutly right there - this is the problem with indirect taxation of course. The 'car taxes' are just taxes on cars as a way of revenue raising - cos that is what govt has to do - but why do people think it permits them an unlimited right of access to the resources? (ie the road) - after all tax on alcohol does not permit unlimited access to govt subsidised booze does it! (not sure if this is a sesnible example...)
Anon - I don't think right wingers are too afraid of saying they want to remove union power through privatisations - they seen union power as a 'producer interest' than needs to be opened up to competition along lines of Adam Smith type ideology. The interestign thing is when they get into conflicts over the need for immigration to increase the pool of cheap labour vs right wing nationalists who favour immigration control for other reasons - this, of course, is a conflict within the right that has never really been resolved! A bit off topic I know.
D
The Right isn't opposed to big government, just the wrong type of big government. Social welfare programs are bad, corporate welfare is expected and normal. A big hugely expensive military is demanded. Big government doesn't get any bigger than that.
Public transport is a social welfare program (Thatcher said anybody riding the bus should consider themselves a failure). Car ownership is an aspiration, a symbol of having made it. Why in the world do people yell at me to get a car when I'm riding my bike? I can certainly afford one, probably a better one than theirs, but it will just make it worse for them, adding to the congestion. So, it is contempt of me not driving a car then.
Actual reality doesn't matter in perceptions like this. Why do car ads always show somebody zooming along a deserted road, high up in the mountains, etc, instead of the reality of stop and go traffic, rarely going faster than 10mph. It is the illusion of freedom which is more important than the reality.
And of course, it is about money. A nationalized rail service doesn't profit for a few companies lucky enough to snag a contract like it does now. It is important that we all believe we have the potential to get rich when in reality most of us will just subsidize the very few who actually do.
That last comment is spot on - very accurate in my view.
Interesting about Thatcher's comment on bus ridership - I heard no one could ever trace the quote (on no les than Radio 4 'Quote Unquote' I think!) - and I've certainly not been able to find it properly attributed in an original source on a web check (but it IS much repeated and just the sort of thing you can imagine her saying) - anyone else ever found the true source? - Have you Christian, by any chance?
No I haven't - but as you suggest it does fit what she might say. I will ask around... Christian
As an Adam Smith Institute Transport Fellow I suppose I ought to reply.
For the record I do not favour (in either the personal(2) or the governmental sense) road over rail. I think the government should have nothing to do with either. So, if it were up to me there would be no subsidy, no tax, no price control, no regulation, no compulsory purchase, no government safety regulations, no planning, no land-use planning.
Well, there's perhaps one exception: making the polluter pay. But be careful what you wish for, rail enthusiasts: trains pollute too(3).
So, let entrepreneurs enter the market and provide the transport solutions they think the passenger wants. Some will build roads. Some will build railways. Some will make pots of money. Some will go bust. And at the end of the day we will have something approaching the best transport system possible with current technology.
I should point out that I very much doubt if that many roads will be toll roads. The motorways for sure, but the rest will probably be free at the point of use in much the same way and for much the same reason that Tesco provide roads free at the point of use.
On your main point, I find it bizarre that many of my fellow free marketeers feel they way they do. I think it may have something to do with the way that with the car puts the individual in control. But if that is the case why aren't they equally in favour of cycling?
It may be because they feel that roads are the future. On this I think they are right(1). But if they are indeed the future why bother subsidising them? Entrepreneurs will simply enter the market and supply the roads we need just as they did with the M6 Toll (sort of).
On the subject of the Thatcher quote, she didn't say it. I understand it was originally attributed to the Duchess of Westminster(4).
Footnotes
1. See Why railways are doomed
2. I think they are both awful. Walking is by far the best form of transport followed closely by staying put.
3. See Save the planet: close down loss-making railway lines
4. See DoT press release.
Patrick - thanks for clearing up the quotation issue - that's a help!
Your honesty is useful, but I tend to think the Adam Smith Institute line is still fantasy. No compulsory purchase? - So the first person who wants to retain their land / home for sentimental or other reasons (and does not respond to money incentives - not everyone does but I doubt the institute can accept that) can block any scheme. It's a nice idea but theory disconnects from reality to make it too fanciful.
D
Actually of course - this is one of a number of things where right and left diverge on less than logical grounds - other examples seem to me to include:
- nuclear power,
and at amore humble level - recycling waste (in my neighbourhood it often seems to be poeple who are quite 'free market' who always complain about the alternate week rubbish collection systems designed for rubbish recycling - why is waste recycling a 'left / right' issue for goodness sake?)
D
I should point out that while being an ASI fellow I do not speak for the ASI. To the best of my knowledge the ASI has no corporate view. All I can do is speak for myself.
On the question of whether we can get by without compulsory purchase I think there's a good chance we can.
See Against Compulsory Purchase
See also Paul Coulam's hilarious if graphic comment on the morality of compulsory purchase.
From the US, I think part of the problem is the definition of "subsidy". Here, auto users pay a user fee, most of which is in the form of a gas (petrol) tax, that is dedicated (hypothecated) to road construction, and pays in most places essentially 100% of the cost for major roads (freeways, state highways). (Local roads are largely paid for with property tax, but you would have these even without cars). So rather than thinking about it as a public subsidy, it is a service in exchange for a fee.
In contrast public transit users pay about 1/3 of the operating cost (and about 0/3 of the capital cost) in most systems, the remainder is paid for out of general funds, dedicated sales taxes, and from highway user fees. The system is thus more subsidized by non-users.
Also in the US 90+% of taxpayers are regular auto users, about 1% to 2% are regular transit users, so the cross-subsidy from transit users to highway users when using general revenue is relatively small and the cross-subsidy from highway users to transit users is relatively large.
All of which sets the stage for the left/right divide. Things that are subsidized by the general public for the disadvantaged few (and riders of buses generally have much lower incomes than average, trains are different) are consistent with a "left"/Democratic point-of-view. People left to their own devices paying for what they use is a more "right"/Republican point-of-view.
Trains, especially commuter trains, have attracted Republican support. This is because the users are well-to-do suburbanites who often vote Republican. Transit advocates endorse this as a way to broaden the base for transit support (though of course it will take resources away from other transit investments).
-- David Levinson, http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/
The above comment concerning the continual operating subsidies for public transport is an important part of the answer. Very few people use trains or buses in the U.S. even when they're available. We prefer our cars and -- when the distance is long -- our airlines.
And, yes freedom is definitely part of the reason. We will put up with some inconvenience to leave when we wish and ride with those we choose; a situation I believe is being duplicated in Europe, Asia and anywhere else people have the wherewithal.
In other words, study us carefully as you're bound to reach the same situation.
With respect Craig, you miss the point - the freedom provided by the highway system in the US was paid for at taxpayer expense (ie collectively) Eisenhower Interstate Programme - and in most countries taxation raised on motorists (fuel, road user tax etc) is NOT nor ever has been nor likely ever to be Hypothecated. I realise this then allows people the freedom of movement - but only on a taxpayer subsidised highway.
As for air travel - well that benefited from massive govt subsidy in the US (who paid for the air ports? - and in the early days the US postal service (the govt in other words) subsidised early flights through the airmail system (have you heard the one about how airlines mailed themselves large quantities of empty mail because the subsidy they got for carrying it was way less than the cost to them of the postage stamps!). Air travel gives no freedom - it's not like a car - you can only go when the airline wants to take you and for the price they charge, and indeed to where they want to fly. Its advatages are purely in time saving, not freedom of choice.
I'm sure you are right that other places will go down the US model - but that is because of govt / taxpayer subsidy - not in spite of it!
D
I think this essay is auseful contribution to the topic:
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/coston.htm
D
"public transit users pay about 1/3 of the operating cost (and about 0/3 of the capital cost) in most systems, the remainder is paid for out of general funds, dedicated sales taxes, and from highway user fees. The system is thus more subsidized by non-users." (David Levinson)
This seems to ignore the point that it is not only the users of public transport who benefit from it. Less directly, so does more or less everyone, including motorists, who would find they had a great deal less room on the roads if all the people using buses or trains were instead using cars.
I think it is fundamentally about the stakeholders and their respective investment.
If you own (and derive pleasure and status from) your own carriage then you have a much greater interest in the state of the infrastructure than if you occassionally hire a seat in someone elses.
There are alot more personal car owners than season ticket holders so the car owners vote is more important to politicians however green they claim to be.
This raises the question of how to increase peoples stakeholding in rail?
How about family season tickets for unlimited travel on public transport for less than the price of a years car ownership?
This article misses a fundamental point.
Examine the social and economic history of the United States (not to mention geogrpahy), and it's plainly apparent why the divide exists between road and rail.
Plenty of conservative Americans are perfectly OK with public transit subsidies - that is, if you live near cities like Boston, New York, Chicago and Washington.
alternnative to commuting.
However, you'll see plenty of folks averse to transiot in cities like Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.
Why??? The earlier cities developed during the industrial revolution - pre automobile - and thus land use and density decisions were made around the rail.
The latter developed post WWII - a time when the US expanded its highway infrastructure like never before. Land use tended to be more sprawled and suburban oriented, necessitating the use of the auto and thus greater reliance on it.
I think the density issue is central to this, and might serve Britons and Europeans with a better sense of the American policy-making process.
We have land. We have always had land. We will continue to have land. And we will build our cities with a maximum emphasis placed on land holdings and private property.
It's why we revolted in the first place...
Interestign that this debate has taken on a transatlantic flavour - in some ways all the better for it - but it is less relevant to us in Europe for the reasons Chris S says - the land and pop density issues make the comparison less relevant (not irrelevant).
The real question is why european conservatives oppose public transport payments and european socialists back them - given the geographic denisty contraints in Europe (in most places). We can learn from the US - but it does not help us answer that question of itself.
D