Meanwhile, builds the largest highway network in the world, many even in cities; maintain shitload of free parking; also enforces minimum parking requirements, all at the expense of tax payer.
People without cars are literally forced to pay to make everyone’s life worse.
And even when they can build stuff on their PRIVATELY OWNED TERRAIN, they damn better follow the rules and make their house look EXACTLY EQUAL to every other house on the street. Now that’s real red-blooded 'murican capitalism’n freedom, baby!
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%.
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.
Meanwhile, builds the largest highway network in the world, many even in cities; maintain shitload of free parking; also enforces minimum parking requirements, all at the expense of tax payer.
People without cars are literally forced to pay to make everyone’s life worse.
FREEDOM!
Removed by mod
And even when they can build stuff on their PRIVATELY OWNED TERRAIN, they damn better follow the rules and make their house look EXACTLY EQUAL to every other house on the street. Now that’s real red-blooded 'murican capitalism’n freedom, baby!
Removed by mod
When I found out about this after Climate Town’s video on the subject, I was so furious!!!
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
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.