This is a common carbrain argument
"I already pay the gas tax"
The problem is that it's false.
In a recent study, researchers Stefan Gössling, Jessica Kees, and Todd Litman calculated the social costs of driving. They found that the social cost is about 30-40% higher than what car owners are actually paying
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003943?via=ihub
That cost is paid by non-drivers.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
That's a no brainer. Of course not.
Should it be? Everyone benefits from the roads even if they don't own or drive a car, because I can assure you that every single item in your house has at one point been transported on a road. Roads are primarily made for freight and it's also the large trucks that wear out the roads so the roads need to be maintained. So it should be the large cargo trucks that paid for the roads, right. But then the cost of freight would have to increase. That'd be great, because freight is way too cheap when companies can offer free freight. There's no such thing as free freight. It costs somebody something. Higher freight costs would mean that people would either consume less, which is bad for the economy, or worse, that they'd simply start driving more themselves, which is bad for the environment.
There's no winning scenario as long as everything is dependent on roads, even when you don't use the road yourself.
A scenario closer to winning is instead of only building infrastructure for cars, we build a comprehensive transportation system where people could choose the best mode for any given purpose.
You might ask yourself why everything is dependent on roads and whether that even makes sense?
And if you disagree with the idea of car and truck owners paying their fair share, perhaps a different proposal?
I'm not OP so I can't be sure, but I think the point is not that gas tax should be increased to the point where it pays 100% of the cost of supporting automobile traffic infrastructure. I think the point is that when carbrains say we shouldn't spend tax money on active transportation infrastructure and we say, "Whaddya mean, we spend tax money on car infrastructure," and they say, "nuh-uh, that's paid for out of the gas tax and we already paid that," they are full of shit.
Yes of course the car brains are full of shit in that claim. Fuel tax was never intended to do that.
I also don't assume my electricity tax pays for the roads where I drive an EV, but perhaps I should ask for a tax refund for the fuel I buy for my lawnmover since I rarely mov the road.
That's not a good thing. Road freight being subsidized means it gets unfair advantage over more efficient transport when it makes sense. So taxes are being used to subsidize inefficient means of transport, at least some of the time.
Making freight pay their share would make them examine how to be most efficient, instead of not caring since they don't pay.
Exactly. Freight should be more expensive.
Companies can only offer free shipping, because their cost is negligible on their end, because the shipping companies have too low prices. It causes over-consumption and more freight.
[Citation Needed]
That's such an obviously false claim, i only need to front window to see how laughable, but it's also ahistorical, too.
Road maintenance is for freight.
The roads are built for the heaviest users and besides the natural frost damage, the only reason why roads wear down is heavy traffic. Roads that are only used by personal vehicles can last a lifetime while the larger cargo routes needs repair constantly and complete overhauls every 5 years or so. That's where the costs of road maintenance comes from.
We can bitch and moan about cars and traffic all day for all kinds of reasons, but when the question is about who should pay the insane price of road maintenance, the arrow points in one direction: Cargo.
Aye, that is the historical progression: We built roads and highways for automobiles, and the logistics companies took advantage of the subsidized "free" ways. We should absolutely make them pay for what they use. It may seem like this system is "good for the economy," but this kind of subsidy distorts the supply/demand equilibrium and creates deadweight loss. Furthermore, the effect it's had on logistics favors just-in-time inventory systems, distant manufacturers, and large, centralized distribution centers. Wal-Mart and Amazon are one visible result.
Perhaps if we priced the cost of transport into the price of goods, it would be better for most people, as manufacturing and distribution (with the associated jobs) moved back closer to the consumers?
Yeah, also if road transport cost the actual price, more goods would be transported by rail and water, which is much better for the environment.
"We can't afford rails, large infrastructure bla.bla." Ah.. Okay .. but how then can we afford to replace the current roads every 5 years? It's like everyone just take roads from granted because it's a socialized cost.
Did they mean train tracks?
I remember driving out West in Arizona and New Mexico, the Interstate paralleling the train tracks. There were at best a handful of trucks on the road, while I'd see these mile-long trains out of the ports of LA or Long Beach every half hour, or less.
I also walked on a section of the original Route 66 that they've preserved in Flagstaff. The U.S. numbered highway system was conceived and built for private cars. As was the Interstate Highway System.
IME, "roads are for freight" is one of those things people just say because it sounds good, and they want it to be true at some level, even though it's so obviously false if you just look around. (I was out there to buy a boat, and buying a tow vehicle and driving it myself was much cheaper than any LTL freight service.)
Because the rail companies have taken a short -term approach of eliminating competition and min-maxing current profits instead of investing in infrastructure, the rail isn't really competing with road freight
Rail freight displaces what is can carry, and the rest is done by road. The mile long train cars are moving a lot of goods, but if you parked by the side of the highway and counted semi trucks you'd see tons of them
Technically, the highway system was designed for military response and to stimulate the economy... But if you look at what it's used for? It's totally fair to say it's to transport goods