In other words, I'm suggesting that these fees not be poured into the general fund, or at least not totally. To drive or not to drive Where regressivity is perceived to be a problem, most of these marginal cost pricing approaches can be linked to rebates. Conversely though, the fees need to be high enough to help fund the transit infrastructure needs for the next century. And that's a big bonus for those who can't, don't or won't drive. After all, access to desired destinations is the real issue.
People are non-drivers for a variety of reasons.
It would be a serious mistake to engage in a new transportation infrastructure building program without assuring that it is paid for by this type of tax-shifted approach. General fund-sourced bonds are the wrong source. Use-based charges are the better means for funding infrastructure bonds. The reason for this is simple. I struggled for months trying to learn to juggle until one day someone suggested I focus on the throw, not the catch.