4 ms·

Plus the idea that non-car-owners do not benefit from a functioning road system is laughable on it's face. Busses and Ubers need roads too, and that's not even

Plus the idea that non-car-owners do not benefit from a functioning road system is laughable on it's face. Busses and Ubers need roads too, and that's not even including the trucks that bring them their food and Amazon orders or the police that protect them and the fire fighters that may one day save their life. That all being said, it is true that the gas tax (along with most other taxes) has not kept pace with the growth of our infrastructure or inflation in general. Going in on increasing the gas tax is the best way to insure you are not getting re-elected because many Americans apparently believe that they pay enough taxes (they don't.)

lastbestmatt 10y ago
Right, it's obvious that non-drivers benefit from the roads too. You could still argue for higher gas taxes or other use fees if you wanted, for example to better align incentives (extra road usage leads to directly higher costs for the user). But this article certainly doesn't make that case.
- ebalit 10y ago
  I think the article proposition is exactly what you're saying. Raise the gas taxes to cover the real cost of the infrastructure.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Again though it's political suicide. People will bitch all day about having crummy roads but if you suggest a tax increase that would amount to 2 bucks extra for every tank you'll be run out of town metaphorically, and possibly literally.
    - ebalit 10y ago
      In France the tax was raised right when oil prices where down. It eases the pain a little.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Of course everyone benefits from the road network as everyone benefits from buses and commercial vehicle access, but this statement is disingenuous in not recognizing the obvious that the dominant factor by far in driving the expansion of the road network is passenger vehicles, usually driven by single drivers. If we had high quality public transit we simply wouldn't need the wide multi lane highways that we have.

lastbestmatt 10y ago

Right, it's obvious that non-drivers benefit from the roads too. You could still argue for higher gas taxes or other use fees if you wanted, for example to better align incentives (extra road usage leads to directly higher costs for the user). But this article certainly doesn't make that case.

ebalit 10y ago
I think the article proposition is exactly what you're saying. Raise the gas taxes to cover the real cost of the infrastructure.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Again though it's political suicide. People will bitch all day about having crummy roads but if you suggest a tax increase that would amount to 2 bucks extra for every tank you'll be run out of town metaphorically, and possibly literally.
  - ebalit 10y ago
    In France the tax was raised right when oil prices where down. It eases the pain a little.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

Of course everyone benefits from the road network as everyone benefits from buses and commercial vehicle access, but this statement is disingenuous in not recognizing the obvious that the dominant factor by far in driving the expansion of the road network is passenger vehicles, usually driven by single drivers. If we had high quality public transit we simply wouldn't need the wide multi lane highways that we have.