> would you also ask childless couples to pay for schools.

We do.

> people never intent on flying to pay for airports?

We also do.

I think the point I'm making (broadly) is that it appears cheap because a lot of that cost has been bundled into taxes, and spreading taxes over an entire population of people (even those not using roads directly) is going to dilute those costs.

The incidental point then; is that you are not actually paying the entire amount for your usage of the road system.

Heck even if you were to make the argument that "everyone uses the roads" or that everybody at least benefits indirectly: your use of them is adding to wear and tear that is disproportionate to your input to that system.

Please understand that this is not meant as an attack. It's a request to shift your perspective into truly internalising the cost, since you're already paying that cost but not directly; how much would you have to pay directly before you consider changing your mind? How much better do the transport options need to be?

Personally, and I don't require everyone to share my view of course, but living in reach of multiple transport options that are quick, cheap, clean and frequent has really changed my life.

I'm not a heavy drinker, but it's really freeing to not worry about my ability to drink. or to worry about parking, or worry about theft or damage, and also to not worry about getting into a collision (especially when it could just as easily be my fault). It feels extremely liberating. I also understand that cars give similar feelings of liberation in other areas (until you want to drink or park).

So it really is more about understanding convenience trade offs; and really I'm not happy to hear "it's cheap" because honestly; it's not. You're just heavily subsidised.