Only 3 states Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey raise enough revenue from cars to fully cover their highway spending.

The remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia must make up the difference with tax revenues from other sources

By diverting general funds to roadway spending, the burden of paying for the roads falls on all taxpayers, including people who drive very little or may not drive at all.

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-funding/

  • Showroom7561
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    but there are lots of instances of taxpayers paying for public transit they cannot personally use.

    Yes, but public transportation has a return on investment that makes it worth paying for, even if you don’t use it.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      the ROI of public transport is difficult to quantify though… things like social mobility, etc… we shouldn’t be thinking about public transport in terms of ROI - its quality of life improvement for the entire city

      • Showroom7561
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        its quality of life improvement for the entire city

        That’s exactly the point! You put in a dollar of tax dollars to get many dollars back in benefits (QOL, environmental, safer streets, lower healthcare costs, etc.).

        The same can be said for cycling and other active transportation investments, they pay back society in benefits. The data (and here) is incredible.

        Car-centric infrastructure does the opposite, and you are always losing money.