A great article from the Grist, the highlight:
\n
…<\/p>\n
It’s a huge and
\nincredibly wonky document. But one part of it jumps right out. In it, Litman
\ntakes on people who object to paying higher gas taxes, tolls, or parking fees (emphasis mine):<\/p>\n
\nCritics are wrong to claim that raising
\nroad tolls, parking fees or fuel taxes is unfair. <\/em>Does charging admission at movie theatres constitute a “war
\non film viewers”? Does charging for bread constitute a “war on eaters?”<\/strong> Motor
\nvehicle user fees only finance about half of roadway costs and a much smaller
\nportion of parking facility costs; the rest is financed indirectly through
\ngeneral taxes (for local roads), higher retail prices (for business parking),
\nlower wages (for employee parking), and higher housing costs (for residential
\nparking) (Litman 2009; Subsidy Scope 2009). This funding structure forces
\npeople who drive less than average to subsidize their neighbors who drive more
\nthan average. Automobile travel also imposes other external costs, including
\ncongestion delays, accident risk, pollution emissions, and various economic and
\nenvironmental costs from fuel consumption. North American fuel taxes are among
\nthe lowest among developed countries and have not been raised to account for
\ninflation during the last two decades. These low user fees exacerbate traffic
\nand parking congestions. The pricing reforms that critics call “anti-car” are
\noften the most effective way to address the problems motorists face.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe truth is, as Litman points out, that
\nno one is calling for an obliteration of cars from the American landscape. Reform
\nadvocates instead want policies that give more people more choice — which
\nmight be nice, considering the way gas prices are going.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n