>>1333934>can't logically, rationally, factually refute one single word of it
As soon as you say that, everybody knows exactly who you are, fringieposter. But I'll take the bait.
Basically you're saying that we still need roads for vital services. Don't think anyone here is disputing that, but the way roads are funded and the false equivalency between funding public transport being seen as socialism and government handouts, when road funding is not the same.
Public transport has wider economic benefits from taking everybody off the roads. Traffic and car use altogether cost tens of billions of dollars based on lost productivity, pollution and health costs and other factors. The millions of dollars worth of economic losses stemming from car use range from people unable to work or delivery vehicles that can't make deliveries by being stuck in traffic, future losses from people who are severely injured or die in car accidents, deteriorating health conditions from air pollution, tax concessions from car usage, etc.
Current external funding outside revenue collected from motorists (road deficit) is already enough to fund current road expenditures on maintenance and upkeep. Remove all the economic losses from private traffic and you can easily fund maintenance for roads. Without those private cars clogging up roads, we wouldn't need such overbuilt road networks to handle the (comparatively) limited amounts of traffic from delivery trucks and emergency vehicles.
And anyway, you entirely miss the way governments allocate spending - fuel taxes don't go straight to roads but are spent across all areas of government expenditure. So taxes wouldn't necessarily go up.>sourced from https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/, unlike you
Go on, I eagerly await your inevitable response to this as well.>absolutely SEETHING>tl;dr>I'm only talking about AMERICA so that means what happens everywhere else in the world doesn't matter