>moves the true cost of road construction and maintenance ... to users, rather than the general public.

Public infrastructure should not be a la carte.

Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized? Why should free parking be subsidized. Car driving is massively subsidized and it has a hugely negative impact on the environment, it's expensive, does not scale, and difficult to maintain. Reducing car use, and shifting to a transit and walking focused style of living is better on every front.

> walking focused style of living is better on every front

Try that in Phoenix, AZ in the middle of July @ 3pm - I'll even buy you a 2L Camelpak filled with ice water.

Trust me, about an hour in you'll be begging for a car.

Snark aside, the problem in the United States (especially in the southwest) is that our cities aren't set up for walking, nor do we have anywhere near adequate public transportation.

That can't be changed overnight (heck, the Phoenix Metro area has only had light rail system for less than a decade); cities won't become magically walkable or bikeable (and I can't imagine Phoenix ever being this way in the summer, unless every employer installs showers for employee use).

There's also the factor that many people (though the demographics seem to be shifting) see vehicles as more than a tool; they seem them as objects of self-expression - almost like a mechanical costume, in a way. There's also the fact that car affords you the ability to get to your destination on your own schedule, not someone else's. Plus, there's just the sheer joy of driving for driving's sake (sometimes, I like to drive my car just to drive it - no particular destination or reason, just because I like to drive - fancy that).

>Buses and trains are.

They are still subsidized (at least in the US). Almost all public transit in the US isn't self-sustaining based on its fares.

The road tax in gasoline is similar. Additionally, most of the wear on roads comes from tractor trailers, which is why they are taxed additionally.

Whether or not car driving is subsidized, it's incorrect to suggest that it's levied uniformly across the population. Gas tax makes up a very large fraction of public spending on roads.

Also, although buses and trains charge per user, they are also heavily subsidized.

Busses are part of the public transportation infrastructure, just like roads, sidewalks, bridges and everything else. It's weird that they aren't fully subsidized.

But roads aren't fully subsidized. That's what the gas tax is for. Drivers of electric cars are currently free-riders, which is something that will have to be addressed if they become a significant fraction of drivers.

Electric cars are technically still taxed on electricity, registration, and purchase. They shouldn't be taxed further until other cars are forced to pay the full cost of their effects including NOx and CO2.

Those taxes are not specifically for roads like the gas tax is.

We will at some point have to do a total rethink of how we pay for roads.

>Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized?

I believe my statement was quite clear. Public infrastructure should not be a la carte.

"Buses and trains" are included in "Public Infrastructure". At least by my definition.

I'm really curious, if it was a la carte, who wouldn't be using it? The OP says it like there's a large group of people not using that infrastructure.. but I can't fathom who those people are?

Hermits living in the woods, alone? Hunting their own food, making their own furniture, etc?

It seems like anyone with even the most minor connection to society are using the goods and services of the road infrastructure. Am I missing something obvious?

Anyone who doesn't own a car?

If you're making the common argument that they're still "using" it because they patronize stores whose goods arrive by roads and such, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. You want the direct users of something paying for it. If the non-car-owner benefits from the roads through stores using them to ship goods, they should pay for that as part of the price of those goods.

Well, I wasn't exactly making the "argument", but yes that was my thought process.

I disagree though that they shouldn't pay for it. Everyone should. However, the most likely scenario is paying indirectly, in your case.

Eg, if we increased road taxes and applied them only to those who actually use the roads directly, then shipping products will also require price increases to cover said increased road costs. So the end user is paying for the taxes whether they like it or not, in most cases.

Right, but then the end user is paying for it in proportion to how much they benefit. Someone who uses the roads more (directly or indirectly) pays more than someone who uses the roads less. Which is how it ought to be.

The argument that you benefit indirectly could be applied to almost anything. You benefit from the computers used by the businesses you patronize, so should we levy a tax to pay for them? Probably not.

Amount of usage is what's missing from the equation.

Nearly everyone will use the road infrastructure - even indirectly (see: buses, groceries that are delivered by truck), but users (theoretically - back to this part in a bit) have control over the amount of the infrastructure they use.

The ideal argument is that by instituting tolls (or other similar per-use pricing), people will choose to be more efficient in their use of infrastructure, either by shifting modalities (see: taking the bus instead of driving), or shifting travel behavior (see: going to the store near you instead of driving two towns away).

But, of course, this is a highly idealized model that doesn't account for negative impacts of tolling. For example, the poor tend to have disproportionately long commutes, and "consume" more road infrastructure as a result. Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted.

Also, the idea that people who can't afford the tolls will switch to travel modes that lessen the burden (buses, trains, carpooling, etc) presumes the existence of competent alternative modalities. This is empirically false in (most of?) America. Proposals for extensive end-user tolling would be less problematic if the revenue can be guaranteed for developing alternate modes. As it stands the vast majority of such proposals I have seen simply institute a cost without offering anything resembling reasonable alternative modes.

>Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted.

See Toll roads hurt the poor?

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt...

To be clear - I'm not 100% opposed to tolling. Around here in NYC there is a plan by MoveNY to institute tolling on all East River bridges which I think is a great idea for raising revenue and reducing congestion.

But the trick is that NYC has multiple competent alternative modes for people to fall back to - the train (both commuter and metro), as well as an extensive bus system - not to mention the ferry system.

But more often than not tolling is proposed without reasonable alternative modes. The poor can take the bus instead of paying the toll - if the bus system was good enough to get them to work on time... If it serves their neighborhood at all.

I'm not sure if the article you linked to is specifically in regards to a specific proposal in LA - I agree with its conclusions, but I don't think you can take a "tolls don't hurt the poor" conclusion from it. Heck, the very bottom of the article literally admits "Tolls may disproportionately burden the poor".

Specifically, the UCLA graphic claims (IMO correctly) "tolling hurts less than a commensurate sales tax increase". This is absolutely correct - sales taxes are regressive and tend to impact low-income people much more than wealthy people. Tolling is the lesser of two evils here, but we can and should do better than just those two options.

There are more ways to fund transport infrastructure than just tolls and sales taxes - property and income taxes, for one, which are progressive and do not have the disproportionate impact on low-income people. Property taxes in particular help the government realize the gains produced by infrastructure investment - a new transit center leads to rising property values, leading to more revenue that can be used to maintain or expand said infrastructure.

In any case, I'm actually for tolling, but only if reasonable alternative modes are already in place. Unfortunately this means I'm against tolling in (most) parts of the US, because frankly alternative modes are either non-existent or so marginal that they are not reasonable fallbacks to driving.

I agree.

In the spirit of making sure public infrastructure is maximally available and not a la carte, let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are.

>let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are

Presumably there are no gas taxes or licensing fees in this magical place you live?

I agree.

But I would like to clarify, I am not 100% against tolls.

Its perfectly reasonable to be expected to pay, for example, a small entrance fee at a national park. But it is unreasonable for this small entrance fee to fund the entire park and unacceptable for it to become a large entrance fee.

Given that everyone relies on vehicles that use roads (emergency vehicles, for instance), there's no such thing as "users" distinguished from "the general public."

Thing bigger, friend.

The tax would presumably be proportional to (or at least a function of) the amount of use. If the only time a person relied on the road was when they needed an emergency service, then they would pay very little tax indeed. If someone decided to start a delivery business, which saw thousands of cars going to and from peoples houses every day, then they would pay a much larger tax. This tax would presumably be passed onto their customers, making their customers pay a higher tax than the rest of the public.

Shouldn't "users" include everyone who benefits from the roads being used to bring things to them, like groceries to the local store and laptops from manufacturers?

I assume you are in favour of financing public transport also from the pockets of only those who use it? Maybe libraries, too? How about schools?

(Truth be told, I'm from quite the opposite land where driving taxes finance much of the public spending. I wouldn't really mind your proposition too much.)