this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
215 points (96.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

12195 readers
1605 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 63 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Kind of maddening that people who can't even afford to own a car have to pay for other people's car dependency, only to be yelled at for "not sharing the road" when they've got to get to work or school by bike.

[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's how taxes work. Is it also insane people who don't go to school or have kids have their taxes funding their local districts and community colleges?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago

Not the same, though.

The ROI on public education should be incentive enough to want your taxes going to it.

Encourageing car dependency creates losses across numerous categories, including health, environmental, further tax burden, public safety, land use, etc.

But my point was that the entitlement that some drivers have about "owning the road" is so toxic.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 5 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

I think this goes both ways though. Obviously cars get more money, but there are lots of instances of taxpayers paying for public transit they cannot personally use.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 hours 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.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

the thing about public transport is that you benefit from other people using it, i for one quite like having less traffic on the roads and less pollution in the air that i breathe

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 9 hours ago

True! And while roads often have negative impacts, the positive economic impacts are measurable and legit (at least in absence of other ways of getting around!).

To be clear, I am on your side lol, just playing devil's advocate

[–] PanGodofPanic@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 14 hours ago

The aggregate cost of public transit besides roads themselves is a rounding error against the aggregate cost of roads alone, nationwide. This is not a valid argument until that comparison is anywhere near peer.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Don't most goods move by truck? You want your Amazon package don't you?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago

Trains to move long distances, trucks for city to city transport, local deliveries can be made by smaller truck or cargo e-bikes.

No need to get rid of roads. We need to get rid of car dependency and make road use more equitable for all users.

[–] MightBeFluffy@pawb.social 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Switzerland requires all warehouses to have a rail connection. Semi trucks are not needed.

[–] Shakezuula@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I guarantee that not all places those goods are going will have the ability to have rail lines. The goods will have to be distributed somehow. Not to say that rail shouldn't be used where possible. Also emergency sevices will always need roads.

[–] MightBeFluffy@pawb.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I wasn't calling out roads or last mile delivery. I was calling out semi-trucks and the insanely large (both financialy and area) infrastructure that is required to support them. Rail is smaller and cheaper and can carry everything a truck can and more of it