[ty6853]

Look you can muddy the waters by considering all of transportation, much of which isn't infrastructure, but what anyone reading can clearly see is all this source lawyering doesn't get past the fact I have at least some data pointing towards my claim. The standard you set yourself for the majority funded by property tax was an uncited _trust me bro_.

I've well cleared the bar you set for yourself. Which even were it true, merely points back to my argument of public transit being a regressive welfare program disproportionately burdening the working class.

[stouset]

Where exactly do you think the additional revenue comes from to fill the gap between "infrastructure revenue" and "total transportation spending"?

In California—a state where revenues from user fees approximates 100% of highway expenditures—that only accounts for 45% of the overall transportation budget. Where do you suppose the extra $14.5bn comes from?

[ty6853]

>ere exactly do you think the additional revenue comes from to fill the gap between "infrastructure revenue" and "total transportation spending"?

Total - infrastructure = non infrastructure.

I have never doubted California might regressively tax the shit out of people for non infrastructure transit spending like metro busses.

This is doubly regressive in California due to their property tax increase capping that is well below inflation, highly benefitting earlier wealthier older entrants at the expense of the younger and less wealthy.

This isn't a very rosy fact for California or for collecting even more on non infrastructure transportation revenue under the current tax regime.