Roads, bridges, gasoline

We have low gasoline taxes, high road use, heavy gas-guzzler cars, driving 3 or 4 blocks to get something, no real bicycle/motor-scooter traffic. In Italy and Switzerland (and probably in other EC countries too) the roads and bridges are maintained through a gasoline tax. They have been paying $4 to $6 per gallon for a number of years, while we were paying $1.50 (those days are gone forever). Our roads were paid for with allocations from other taxes.

What if a tax were placed on our gasoline, the funds earmarked for the roads and bridges? If the tax were high enough, say $6 per gallon or even higher, several things would happen which need to happen. 1) We'd drive the gas-guzzlers a lot less. That means lighter cars, more efficient engines with lower horsepower. Like we need 300 hp to drive to the supermarket. 2) We'd use the roads a lot less, with a lot less weight so there would be much less damage and wear to the roads. 3) We'd start using motorscooters and bicycles, and we'd make it safer for such vehicles to go places. In my town riding to work on a bicycle makes you a target for jerky teen-agers (of all ages) with their pickup trucks and huge tires. People would learn to start treating scooters and bicyclists with courtesy. 4) The roads would last longer and take less maintenance, and the bridges could be upgraded without a lot of additional tax money. 5) There would be a real incentive to develop alternative fuel sources, electrical cars, and so on. 6) There would be a real incentive to develop a mass transit system and train system that really works. 7) The air pollution and dependency on foreign oil would decrease, and we might actually find ourselves NOT going to war in oil-rich countries (undoubtedly a coincidence, given the prevalence of WMD). 8) If the gasoline tax were truly earmarked and restricted, our beloved politicians would have less opportunity to spend it inappropriately.

What we have now is laughable, especially in comparison with what is available in other countries. In Oklahoma City, for instance, there IS NO TRAIN GOING NORTH to cities like Wichita or Kansas City. The train that runs the 160 mile trip to Dallas (from Oklahoma City) takes over 5 hours to get there, because it stops and waits at every town. The trains are no good because there is no incentive to use them; because they are inconvenient and poorly managed there is no incentive to improve them.

Am I missing something, or is this a good idea that other countries already thought of?