much, much more than rail transport as a function of GDP
Uh, you have to compare it with the amount of people it moves. Not the absolute amount. If taxes pay for trains, upkeep, insurance, salaries for drivers, as well as the infrastructure, then that is a greater tax burden than just the highways, PER USAGE. I considered explaining that in my post, but I figured that math savvy hackers wouldn't need it. I figured wrong.
And your "gas tax should fund highways" idea is laughable.
Oh? Please...explain why.
The gas tax doesn't even cover maintenance of existing road systems,
Oh, I see. Well, if you re-read my sentence I said "SHOULD" fund highways. "Should"
SHOULD: A word meaning, "ought", as in, you "should" parse and process each sentence properly before commenting on it. You "should" look up any words you don't fully understand. That sort of thing.
See, I figured that a bunch of well-educated hackers could understand basic language concepts. I figured wrong.
Uh, you have to compare it with the amount of people it moves. Not the absolute amount. If taxes pay for trains, upkeep, insurance, salaries for drivers, as well as the infrastructure, then that is a greater tax burden than just the highways, PER USAGE. I considered explaining that in my post, but I figured that math savvy hackers wouldn't need it. I figured wrong.
And your "gas tax should fund highways" idea is laughable.
Oh? Please...explain why.
The gas tax doesn't even cover maintenance of existing road systems,
Oh, I see. Well, if you re-read my sentence I said "SHOULD" fund highways. "Should"
SHOULD: A word meaning, "ought", as in, you "should" parse and process each sentence properly before commenting on it. You "should" look up any words you don't fully understand. That sort of thing.
See, I figured that a bunch of well-educated hackers could understand basic language concepts. I figured wrong.