10 ms·
> Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. Gasoline taxes pay for a lot of road i
by brightlancer 3y ago
> Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone.
Gasoline taxes pay for a lot of road infrastructure; except for people buying gasoline for their lawn mowers and leaf blowers (not applicable in California), the taxes are being paid by folks using the infrastructure.
If no one in the household drives, they likely use taxis and delivery services, both of which depend upon road infrastructure.
I've never heard of a government bus service which paid for the general (not segregated) road infrastructure they use; if some do, I'd love to be corrected.
And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure.
Roads are broadly used by the people. Why shouldn't the people broadly pay for it?
- ehnto 3y agoYou missed my point I think, which was mostly the below. > I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds. It's fine that we all pay for it, it would just be nice if that's not all we paid for. It would also be nice to slide the balance toward pedestrian focus once you get into CBDs and once you get to residential areas. You still need roads, absolutely, but we should do better at matching the roads to their spaces. > And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure This is more of an aside to be honest, but cyclists don't want to be on the road as much as drivers don't want them to be. Added bike lanes are a compromise, no one wants them, they get people mad, they get people killed. Separated bikelines is one of those "other infrastructure" pieces, which can be built next to mass transit lines for cost efficiency, everyone would prefer that.