ijmorlan, I don't have a fundamental disagreement with your proposal. But I think the big gaps are:
1. Ensuring the Government doesn't double dip. Tax revenue should go down commensurate with the service level they're offering going down.
2. There should be some accounting for the general economic and social benefit that highways provide. It's not just the drivers of the highway that benefit. The Government should pony up some money for that benefit that comes out of general tax revenue (which is our 'best' way of charging society as a whole in a fair manner).
3. There should be some accounting for the nature/purpose of the highway and its relative importance. In your proposal it seems like we should provide some basic level of transportation 'for free'. Between some high density areas, that basic service level may require highways. In other cases it might not. But I think its too simplistic to say that non-highways are ok to be funded directly by the Government but highways aren't. It's very situational dependent.
1. Ensuring the Government doesn't double dip. Tax revenue should go down commensurate with the service level they're offering going down.
2. There should be some accounting for the general economic and social benefit that highways provide. It's not just the drivers of the highway that benefit. The Government should pony up some money for that benefit that comes out of general tax revenue (which is our 'best' way of charging society as a whole in a fair manner).
3. There should be some accounting for the nature/purpose of the highway and its relative importance. In your proposal it seems like we should provide some basic level of transportation 'for free'. Between some high density areas, that basic service level may require highways. In other cases it might not. But I think its too simplistic to say that non-highways are ok to be funded directly by the Government but highways aren't. It's very situational dependent.