Who pays for roads? Most US States require residents to subsidize cars
Who pays for roads? Most US States require residents to subsidize cars
Only 3 states Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey raise enough revenue from cars to fully cover their highway spending.
The remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia must make up the difference with tax revenues from other sources
By diverting general funds to roadway spending, the burden of paying for the roads falls on all taxpayers, including people who drive very little or may not drive at all.
Source: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-funding/
You're viewing a single thread.
Kind of maddening that people who can't even afford to own a car have to pay for other people's car dependency, only to be yelled at for "not sharing the road" when they've got to get to work or school by bike.
That's how taxes work. Is it also insane people who don't go to school or have kids have their taxes funding their local districts and community colleges?
Not the same, though.
The ROI on public education should be incentive enough to want your taxes going to it.
Encourageing car dependency creates losses across numerous categories, including health, environmental, further tax burden, public safety, land use, etc.
But my point was that the entitlement that some drivers have about "owning the road" is so toxic.
Don't most goods move by truck? You want your Amazon package don't you?
Trains to move long distances, trucks for city to city transport, local deliveries can be made by smaller truck or cargo e-bikes.
No need to get rid of roads. We need to get rid of car dependency and make road use more equitable for all users.
Switzerland requires all warehouses to have a rail connection. Semi trucks are not needed.
I guarantee that not all places those goods are going will have the ability to have rail lines. The goods will have to be distributed somehow. Not to say that rail shouldn't be used where possible. Also emergency sevices will always need roads.
I wasn't calling out roads or last mile delivery. I was calling out semi-trucks and the insanely large (both financialy and area) infrastructure that is required to support them. Rail is smaller and cheaper and can carry everything a truck can and more of it
I think this goes both ways though. Obviously cars get more money, but there are lots of instances of taxpayers paying for public transit they cannot personally use.
the thing about public transport is that you benefit from other people using it, i for one quite like having less traffic on the roads and less pollution in the air that i breathe
True! And while roads often have negative impacts, the positive economic impacts are measurable and legit (at least in absence of other ways of getting around!).
To be clear, I am on your side lol, just playing devil's advocate
but there are lots of instances of taxpayers paying for public transit they cannot personally use.
Yes, but public transportation has a return on investment that makes it worth paying for, even if you don't use it.
the ROI of public transport is difficult to quantify though… things like social mobility, etc… we shouldn’t be thinking about public transport in terms of ROI - its quality of life improvement for the entire city
its quality of life improvement for the entire city
That's exactly the point! You put in a dollar of tax dollars to get many dollars back in benefits (QOL, environmental, safer streets, lower healthcare costs, etc.).
The same can be said for cycling and other active transportation investments, they pay back society in benefits. The data (and here) is incredible.
Car-centric infrastructure does the opposite, and you are always losing money.
The aggregate cost of public transit besides roads themselves is a rounding error against the aggregate cost of roads alone, nationwide. This is not a valid argument until that comparison is anywhere near peer.
people who can’t even afford to own a car have to pay for other people’s car dependency
Those same people can STFU unless they want to waive all their rights to police protection, ambulance service, or fire department response.
police protection lmao
if removing roads means the police can't get around then we should do it ASAP, it would save so many lives
Emergency services are paid for by property taxes. Completely independent of what kind of vehicle people do (or do not) use.
Explain.
Do police, ambulance, and fire need 4 lane stroads packed with gridlock, or 18 lane highways filled with traffic congestion to function properly?
We can have a working road system for emergency services, transport, and public transportation without the burden of car dependency.
Protected bike lanes / bus lanes / tramway can also be used by ambulances, fire department and police in case of emergency. They even have better response times due to not being stuck on car traffic
So yeah, I'd rather have my tax dollars being used in that kind of infrastructure, instead of only on car centric designs
Drivers whining about bike lanes etc. can STFU first. Then, and only then, you might have had a point.
Mr. Owl, how many libertarians does it take to solve a bear problem?
It depends.. black bear or brown bear? https://youtu.be/PYkWWnZm6-w