okamido

This is an extreme oversimplification of what highways and interstates were designed for. It had and has absolutely nothing to do with "subsidising motorists", and everything to do with maintaining a first world economy.

SomeGuy

Finally, some reason amidst all this madness!

Sharks and love

It subsidizes and helps business, which is what I've been saying.

Businesses reap the benefit of society - roads, police protection, fire protection, trash pickup, clean air, etc, and society gets to make certain rules by which the businesses must adhere to.

Edgewaters

Regardless of the intent, it is still a subsidy for motorists; the cost of driving is distorted. Pedestrians, transit users and whatnot are subsidizing a service they don't use. Roads simply for delivery vehicles, emergency services and so on would not require anywhere close to the same amount of infrastructure. For instance, four-lane highways, free parking and so on are only required because of motorists.

An example:

In 2005, Donald Shoup, an economist and professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, published a book titled The High Cost of Free Parking, which provided important insights into problems associated with minimum parking regulations.

These regulations dictate the minimum amount of off-street parking spaces that any urban development must provide. They are meant to ensure there is an adequate supply of off-street parking for the additional cars that will be attracted to the development, minimising any spillover of cars parking on surrounding streets.

Most off-street parking provided in our cities in accordance with minimum parking regulation is free, but it is a mistake to think that because drivers don't pay, nobody pays.

By requiring a development to provide a minimum amount of off-street parking, the cost of providing this parking is bundled into the cost of development. This then is passed on to the public through increases in the cost of all goods and services sold at sites that offer free parking.

This has various ill effects. First, so-called free parking distorts transport choices because by bundling the cost of parking into the prices of goods and services, the true cost of driving a car is hidden and it appears relatively cheaper to drive compared with walking, cycling or taking public transport.

For example, if you had to pay $2 up-front whenever you parked at your local shopping centre, you would think twice before driving and you might instead decide to walk, cycle or take public transport.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116672363