This analysis puts to paper a basic summary of how transportation funding works in the Austin area. Similar conclusions can be drawn about every metropolitan area in the state; and in many other states.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am only analyzing road construction and maintenance. There are many other expenses associated with roadway usage which will not be included here because they are far more difficult to quantify. However, many people have made an attempt at doing so from a macroeconomic perspective; and some of these studies can be found on the road subsidies links section. For the record, these include obvious things like police/fire/EMS spending on enforcement and accident response to difficult items like our military presence in the Middle East.
The interesting thing about this particular analysis, though, is that while only addressing some of the governmental spending on roads, certain trends become obvious. Including these other diversions would only make this conclusion more obvious; but at the expense of unnecessary argument.
Most drivers in the Austin area, as well as in general, believe that the taxes they pay at the pump, totalling roughly 38 cents per gallon in this case, cover the entire costs of road construction and maintenance, as well as providing a 'profit' from which various governmental entities fund other programs such as mass transit. However, in fact, the total road spending in this area greatly exceeds the amount collected in gasoline taxes.
The gas tax assessed in Texas is the same regardless of metropolitan area; there is currently no provision for assessing local, county, or regional gas taxes. The tax assessed consists of two portions - one going to the federal government, and one to the state of Texas.
Most people assume that the 'state highway system' mentioned above consists of all roadways in the state. However, the state roadway table should make this fairly obvious that the meaning of 'state highway system' is simply all routes currently signed and marked as state highways, be they FM/RM/RR routes; SH routes; US routes; or interstate highways. This may seem like a minor issue, but, in fact, in this metropolitan area as well as in most other large cities in the state, most major arterial routes are not part of the state highway system
In fact, with the exception of a few special circumstances, there is no transfer of funds from the state gasoline tax to projects outside the state highway system.
The federal gasoline tax currently stands at TBD cents per gallon, of which TBD cents is reserved for 'deficit reduction'. This deficit reduction tax, if added to a system which was already self-supporting, would actually lend credence to the generally-held idea that drivers are a source of, rather than a sink of, tax dollars.
The remainder of the federal gas tax is largely a black-box donation to the federal Department of Transportation which disperses these funds according to various mandates. As discussed later in the dispursement section, however, motorists generally greatly overestimate the amount of these funds spent on anything other than roadways.
Some cities in our region tack on as much as one cent on the sales tax rate to pay for major roadways. Austin instead spends a penny running the local mass transportation authority, which serves as another bugaboo for drivers who believe they are being overtaxed. However, as the dispursement analysis shows, much of the funds given to Capitol Metro are spent on major roadways in the local area; and the sample analysis shows that more money goes out of a transit user's pocket for roads than vice-versa.
Both counties and cities in Texas levy substantial property taxes on their property owners. Since the state lacks an income tax, this is the primary source of revenue for not only schools but also city and county governments, including road construction and maintenance.
Most economists would consider a property tax to be essentially neutral on the scale between progressive and regressive. However, in cities experiencing a good deal of suburban sprawl, this tax actually tips fairly far towards the regressive end; since the (usually older) homes occupied by lower-income homeowners happen to sit on land which is more valuable on average than the land under the suburban McMansions.
The property tax collected goes into the general fund for either the city or county, respectively. As mentioned in the sales tax section, a considerable amount of road spending comes from city and county general funds (or long-term bonds which are repaid by the general fund).
The state gasoline tax funds are the easiest to follow; because as mentioned before, they are constitutionally designated for the state highway system and absolutely cannot be spent on anything else. The interesting fact here is that, unlike in some states, the vast majority of major arterial roadways here are not part of the state highway system. What this means is that, essentially, most big roads receive no funding from the state gasoline tax. Also, all collector-class roadways and residential streets receive no gasoline tax funding; as is the case in most places.
Also, the Texas highway department is now supposedly running at a deficit of almost 67%. IE, they've identified 3 dollars which need to be spent for every dollar they're receiving in gas taxes. In fact, this has already started to have effects at the local level. The recent norm for highway projects in this region was a 10% contribution for right-of-way purchases from local governments for land which needed to be bought to expand (or build) the highway. This fee, while substantial due to the suburbanization of the region (and resultant higher land prices) was still low enough to be considered fairly reasonable, even though technically a diversion to the state. However, the new Texas Turnpike Authority which is tasked with the construction of four new tollways in our region, has tried to push this figure as high as 100% (boiling down to 'you buy the land and give it to us; we pay for the construction').
Following the funds returned from the federal gas tax is much more difficult; there is a fairly opaque process by which these are allocated and returned. However, in my observation of the local MPO, the vast vast majority of federal gas taxes are spent on major roadways; and the largest percentage of that funding goes right back into state highways. CAMPO does have a policy which they like to claim provides 15% of their funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects such as barrier removal projects (which were only necessary because of poor highway design), but in fact this target applies only to a fairly narrow category of funds; one of many categories from which they receive federal dollars.
All roads; nothing but roads. In fact, the county's largest spending items in recent bond packages have been donations back to the state for matching funds for state highway projects (2001).
Mostly roads. In fact, the city's largest spending items in recent bond packages have been donations back to the state for matching funds for state highway projects (2000). After that, a large portion of the bond packages went to reconstruct roadways, most of which are locally controlled major arterials (list).
Returning a quarter-cent; spending another quarter-cent on roads