That is true, but people seem to get all riled up when there is talk of closing an airport, any airport. Pilots don't want to pay user fees, landing fees, etc. But somebody needs to be paying. The question is who?
Completely agree. I may be one of those odd ball pilots but if an airfield isn't being utilized, or is significantly under untilized, I'm all in favor of reallocating the property. That may result in me having to drive an extra 30 minutes to the next airport but overall that is a minor inconvenience.
If there is a need, it will be built. You should see how many big ranches here in Texas have their own 5000' runway. If the infrastructure was needed, it would be built by those that have the need.
I've been to at least one of those private ranch airports in Texas, built by people with very deep pockets. I fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people had more money than the entire population of some small towns. Not that that is bad, but I think the country needs some airport infrastructure, especially in areas where distances are large. Ranch airports aren't really the answer. For one thing, they are private and can limit access to ranch business only.
I agree with you but I was playing the Devil's Advocate. The fact is that someone needs to pay for these things. Probably the "fairest" situation would be for the feds, the state and local agencies and the users to all chip in. However, there will always be controversy about the proportions.
Just like aviation user fees, the problem is the cost to collect them. It costs practically nothing to collect fuel taxes, but look at the problems the State of Washington has had with bridge tolling.
I disagree. The fuel taxes on aviation fuel are supposed to go to a trust fund, and from there they get distributed "fairly".
I can agree with that, however, Kent was using the example of a toll bridge. Should all drivers in Washington be paying for that bridge, just the ones who use it, or a combination of both?
For electric airplanes, or for them to figure out how to equitably tax them (or both)?
I think Grant makes a valid point, but it's true that electric airplanes are 50+ years off. Maybe small airplanes like 172s could be electric in a few decades, but we have absolutely no idea how to make an electric 747. And even for the 172....I doubt it would make for a viable airplane. Electric cars are still in their early infancy. They are still a lot more expensive, worse for the environment, and aren't close to the capability of regular cars. I'm sure this will improve in the next decade, but cars are a trivial problem compared to airplanes.
They are also not paying their fare share of pollution tax (if there were such a thing). The environmental footprint of those cars is enormous.
Nickel mining (extremely high impact on the environment), electricity generation, car construction cost (very high impact as there's lots of shipping involved) - just to name a few.
Well, no. There's significant differences in how power is generated. One isn't necessarily better than the other. Coal plants are quite bad for the environment, and oil drilling can obviously also be very bad.
Not necessarily. But it is different right now, mostly because of the battery technology we use. Making the battery in most electric cars right now, for example, has a huge environmental impact due to toxicity of the components used as well as shipping/manufacturing.
No doubt...
I've listed some. As always, this isn't a simple topic. Just like how adding ethanol to the fuel used doesn't actually do what people think of first.
Kinda hard to put up a sign at the state line at 8,000 feet that says "Speed limit 230 KIAS below this sign." 
