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/

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Ricky Rigatoni@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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?

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • Shakezuula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          33 minutes ago

          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.

    • cole@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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

        • cole@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          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

      • Panini@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

    • MisterOwl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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

      • ronigami@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Emergency services are paid for by property taxes. Completely independent of what kind of vehicle people do (or do not) use.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

      • pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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

      • grue@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        Drivers whining about bike lanes etc. can STFU first. Then, and only then, you might have had a point.