There's also the positive externalities of infrastructure, and that winds up as land values. Like, my dad grew up in a house in what was, at the time, a rural a

There's also the positive externalities of infrastructure, and that winds up as land values. Like, my dad grew up in a house in what was, at the time, a rural area near Seattle. When we were driving down I-405, he'd point out a major commercial building that went up there after the freeway went up. The difference in property value between the two is almost entirely due to I-405 being there. Basically, my point is that drivable places tend to be more valuable than non-drivable, so property taxes are an indirect way of capturing the value provided by infrastructure (particularly land-value taxes).