3 ms·

> Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. Why should they? Roads are not there only for those actually using them: they are mea

• pkulak 10y ago
  No, not really. A helicopter would probably be faster and cheaper in that case. There's no huge push to pave wide roads up the sides of mountains just to rescue the dozen or so climbers that need it every year.
• gaius 10y ago
  Why should they? Roads are not there only for those actually using them: they are meant to be always available for everyone. Right, this line of reasoning leads to, why should anyone without kids pay for schools? And so on and so on. It's OK to believe that mind, it's a free country, but you would need to be consistent about it.
• Cerium 10y ago
  I would be fine with everyone paying for the roads and them being actually available for everyone. The problem is that many roads are made only for cars and do not have adequate side walks and protected bike lanes such that everyone can use them.
• Lagged2Death 10y ago
  Why should they? Roads are not there only for those actually using them... Okay, but a big part of the opposition to raising necessary taxes to maintain infrastructure is the notion: "I already pay for that." So pointing out that no, you don't already pay for that, you're being subsidized in this case, becomes really important. In any case, I'd argue that pushing more of the costs of roads onto the immediate road-users would internalize now-externalized costs, produce better incentives, and ultimately more efficient use of resources of many kinds.