Originally Posted by
Bekologist
Damage to transportation infrastructure is a public burden? I'm not against public infrastructure that supports the moving of goods, people and services. but whos paying for the damage? other countries can build longer lasting road surfaces, take a look at the autobahn design standards compared to american highways.
A lot of american roads are under-engineered and destined to fall apart prematurely, all in the name of sprawl and motor vehicle conveyance.
Over 80 years ago The US Supreme Court okayed states licensing and taxing motor vehicles because of the damage they cause to public roads and highways in this country.
What is myrridin trying to tell the forum?
Because motor vehicles are such a burden on public tax coffers, states shouldn't follow design mandates of the federal highway administration?
what a gashuffer. those allied with the vc seem to be very pro motoring. i wonder if the political perpetuation of vc is a secretive AAA bicyclist restriction program? (tongue in cheek)
What specific supreme court case are you referring to? The only such cases I am familiar with used public safety as their primary reason, not maintenance... Which is particularly amusing given that the vast majority of roads in this country were funded either through vehicle use taxes or military justified expenditures...
And once again you hold europe up as a shining example. I get it european engineers good, American engineers bad... europeans good, Americans bad
Any and all designs are subject to cost constraints. No european nation covers the sheer quantity of territory that the US does. Population densities are much higher. Hence the economics would allow them to spend more per mile of road...
Oh, and just to bring Godwins law into it, you do know that those Autobahns you reference so proudly were intended by the Nazi's to move TANKS...