• baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In some state, yes, if by “most” you mean “more than 50% of road expense is paid by toll and car related taxes”.

      But that is still a huge percentage not covered by tax for car users, requiring other foundings to cover them. The highest percentage paid by user tax and toll is not even 70% in all the U.S. states.

      Not to mention many state dont even cover 50%; some only cover as low as 19% or even 12%.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/mapping-how-u-s-states-pay-for-roads

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, we all benefit from the road system even if we ourselves don’t drive, so I guess it’s fair.

        • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It depends, in a country where the road system makes sense, sure. In rural area where every road serves a purpose: connecting business to transport goods, sure.

          But excessive roads in cities and suburbs? No. Many roads in city and suburbs of the U.S. should be closed for cars, and be bike, bus, and emergency vehicles only. Since cars either don’t use them that much or just don’t have good experience on them because of the congestions. This also saves road maintainance, enables a smoother experience in transport and emergency vehicles, controls emission, and encourage a health life style in general.

          It is again about the right tools for the job. A loaded van to transport fruit to the local farmer’s market, emergency vehicles, these are times where cars are the right tools. On the other hand, F150 is not the right tool to get a Mcdonald’s drive through for one.