Funding roads (taxes, user fees etc)

[danbrotherston]

"I consider that a two-lane (single lane each direction) network of roads should be provided free, on the theory that some vehicle access is needed “everywhere”."

I've considered writing a response to this a couple of times, because I think there are a number of fundamental flaws with this approach/proposal.  

But the one I'll go with, is that it treats everything from Northern Ontario to Downtown Toronto the same.  A single lane road in a very high density area isn't really providing vehicle access because its going to be completely unusable.  The level of service in those two places is completely different.  So if we change your idea to be that some basic level of 'transportation' service should be provided to everyone, I'm totally for it.  That covers the ability for people/goods/emergency services/etc. to move at least somewhat efficiently.  In many places this means by car, but in some places it means by mass transportation.

And I think that's generally what we do (although, sure, far from perfectly).  New road expansions are determined by at least somewhat objective measurements.  There ARE usage fees for driving.  The gas tax is still being paid and its still being paid by the people using roads the most.  There are also usage fees for public transportation and some Government subsidies there too.  I definitely agree that car drivers are on the 'privileged' side of the spectrum right now.  But I also think things like saying there should never be "free parking", every multi-lane road should be tolled, etc. is going too far to the other side of the spectrum and kind of ignores that drivers already are paying something.

Also, and as a more general point and not really in response to the quote, I'd point out that the attitude that we should only pay for the things we ourselves directly use can make it hard to build a great society.

I think you're mostly, in agreement with the OP, on your first point.  But I disagree with the second, road expansions are determined by objective measurements, but those measurements are centered around minimizing congestion at rush hour.  Which basically benefits single occupant vehicle drivers, it provides no real economic benefit over providing other forms of transit, but incurs substantial societal costs, the majority of which aren't borne by drivers.  You point out they pay some fees, but those fees cover only a small portion of the costs associated with driving.

On your more general point, I entirely agree.  We should invest in, and subsidize things to make our society great.  I don't believe mass single occupant vehicle transportation is one of those things.  As pointed out, it has enormous costs.  That, I believe was the OPs original point, and one you do seem to agree with.  Roads provide huge benefit, but the problem is, in dense areas, the inefficient and wasteful uses (single occupant vehicles) crowd out the more beneficial uses, so we must, at enormous cost, build them enormously wide.  I'd argue pretty much any other option would be better than that, including forcing those who are incurring the inefficient and wasteful use of roads to incur the full cost of widening and operating them.

In my mind, it really boils down to separating the beneficial uses of roads, with the inefficient and socially expensive uses.