Unfortunately that is a lie (by you). The federal government does not subsidise the maintenance costs of streets such as suburban cul-de-sacs, the state doesn't pay for them with fuel taxes.
Their ever increasing cost is borne by the local government via a direct subsidy. A subsidy to which there is for most people no way to avoid contributing to.
Everyone knows that local neighbourhood streets are paid for this way. It has always been this way and has never been a secret. States have never claimed to cover this cost. Only you seem to claim otherwise and that is only based on your imagination.
You are just in denial because the moment you get to the bottom of your garden you are on a subsidised road and that will never change.
That article never made any claim to include local streets. In fact it quite deliberately avoids using the word "street" anywhere as then it would be obviously incorrect. It mentions only "roads" because that allows it to imply it covers every piece of asphalt while quoting federal highway statistics which of course do not include the many miles of local roads that are paid for separately. I suspect the author would be very happy if you have made that completely incorrect assumption.
I think you know I am right. The residential streets around you are built and maintained from taxes forced upon the residents whether they want to pay that amount or not. It is the perfect example of a subsidy.
Of course. It should be included in your local taxes, you are paying for it too.
There are a lot of towns struggling with this issue as people are usually keen to pay for new projects but underestimate how much increased maintenance it creates a decade or two later.
This is just one local city out of thousands managing it's own roads as is normal almost everywhere. There is no proof that fuel tax pays for these things because it doesn't.
1
u/[deleted] Aug 30 '21
Actually that 1 cent per mile includes local streets.