Taylor introduces the notion that transportation finance is a political matter, going on to give a brief history of the role of road usage in America from the 1930s, with similar changes occurring here in Australia.

This whole scenario depends on which form of government is in at the time, whether it be left or right. Performance criteria is utilised to asses what the cheapest short term option is for transportation investment that is financially viable. This clearly means that transportation finance is a political matter, but one must ask to whom the government panders and why.

With the onset of the great depression in America, fuel tax was the largest tax going at the time and the best means of accumulating revenue in those testing times - thus people were encouraged to drive. Highway construction started to occur all over the country, but what is key to all of this is how other forms of transport ie bike riding and public transport did not have to be accounted for within the planning of these new roadways. So while roads sprawled, development of other forms of transportation pretty much halted.

In the 1970s, General Motors bought up many other transport systems, making it somewhat impossible in many instances to get around without a car. Though it was at the same time that the public started to become irritated when new highways were being constructed within established suburbs, brining with them traffic, noise and pollution.

The notion of user pays is introduced, with the explanation that there is no such thing as 'free' parking, rather that the cost of provision of parking and road usage is offset through other means. The introduction of user pays means that the majority of the cost is past on to the user, but then when parking is 'free', it is financed via parking infringements, registration, taxes and shopping bills. An example of this is a shopping centre. Shopping centres provide 'free' parking often to entice customers. What many people don't realise is that those parking spaces come at a great cost to the business and the cost of providing them is offset by adding their expense to the price of their goods; meaning that you pay for the parking by paying the inflated prices the shop has introduced to its products. The same can be said of toll-ways and petrol. The more you use, the more it costs. At the same time, it must be noted that currently vehicles are not charged for the degradation they cause, whether it be environmental or social.

Here lies a problem. While it is good that cars are becoming more fuel efficient, an offset of this is less revenue acquired through fuel tax revenue. This is reason why the government is not keen on pushing cars to cleaner alternatives. It has also raised the issue that there is a growing gap between funds raised and service infrastructure needed. Need is outstripping what is being provided and while providing more roads may be seen to ease congestion, it only invite more cars to the road, cars that are not covering the cost of services required under the current level of taxes claimed to do so. It is becoming growingly financially unviable.

The issue of rising fuel costs is of concern, as people are struggling to afford to operate their vehicles and are paying heightened prices for goods that have to travel greater distances due to the dispersion of our car based cities. Calls to lower fuel taxes are ill-founded, as this tax is required to maintain the infrastructure to run on, meaning that other forms of finance generation will have to be employed, whether it means increased GST or something else. This has also resulted in many people who are in need of public transport not having it available to them, so reluctantly continue to drive their car, often into areas that are less car reliant, particularly for localised travel.

As is evident in America and Australia, our reliance on the car has a direct correlation to the way in which our urban centres have developed and operate, with dispersed suburbs that are too low in density to ensure public transportation is viable. Resulting in particular areas of higher density with little parking which are well serviced by public transport compared to seemingly endless expanse of suburbs which receive poor to no public transport within an acceptable walking distance, is too infrequent to warrant its use, does not take the person where they want to go and or is too slow, but with more than adequate parking.

Decisions in transportation finance spending will continue to have political ties, but it is up to constituents to rally their representatives to voice the change that they desire, whether that be increased public transport services, roads closed to cars or the introduction of bike lanes. The impact of transportation finance has a greater effect on everyone's life than most would care to believe.

Questions:

• How do we move from a car reliant society to one that favours public transport, riding and walking, if transportation finance favours roads?
• What are some of the social outcomes of a dispersed, car reliant urban environment?
• What kind of finance accumulation shift could be undertaken as to deliver the funds for road maintenance while pushing for more fuel efficient vehicles?

Reference:

Taylor, B. 2004, "The Geography of Urban Transportation Finance", The Geography of Urban Transportation, ed. Hanson, S., Giuliano, G., Guilford Press, New York, ch. 11 (38p)

11. Infrastructure 24th May, 2008 16:52:24   [#] 

Comments

Taylor, B. 2004, "The Geography of Urban Transportation Finance"
The social outcomes of sprawl and car reliant society include environmental degradation (pollution), social isolation (especially for young people and women), and financial pressure (of running at least one – maybe 2 or 3 – cars).

To move to away from being a car reliant society we have to start factoring in the social and environmental cost of roads.

Also, low density urban form should not be seen as a barrier to the provision of good public transport. Paul Mees did some research on Toronto, which he argued had similar densities be Melbourne, and found that even in low density areas if you have good quality public transport (ie. frequent service 7 days) people will use it instead of driving.
KateB  27th May, 2008 13:04:25  

Taylor, B. 2004, "The Geography of Urban Transportation Finance"
I agree with KateB in the most part, but would've suggested that the elderly would be more socially isolated by sprawl and a car reliant society than women. Sprawl and cars certainly don't favour men over women, but definitely has many negative impacts on low socio-economic groups/families.

It is also very hard to move away from a car reliant society in the outer Melbourne areas with the current infrastructure and services provided. Most trips in these outer areas are no doubt short trips to the shops, schools, social visits, and so on, which cannot be provided by fixed rail and obviously trams are non existent. The only viable option is buses, but as Kate explains you need much higher frequencies. The bus services are currently in a endless negative cycle where hardly anyone uses them because they're so infrequent, yet they aren't funded to become more frequent because no one is really using them. What needs to be done is a major overhaul of the bus system by the Government with some decent financial investment. Buses need to be frequent and link up to trains on time, and there needs to be an education campaign to explain the new system and associated benefits to get everyone on board! They have the potential to become a good alternative transport option, especially if they also get priority lanes on major roads and freeways to reduce travel times.
will  28th May, 2008 01:25:50