Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Do you really want there to only be one lifestyle available in the country? Don't you want there to be infrastructure available in remote regions of the nation so that you can enjoy it if you should have to go there? By the way, I'm literally walking distance from actual civilization, there's just artificial monopoly boundaries in the way of someone other than AT&T bringing fiber into my county, and thus some competition. It's a short hop.
Because despite the views of the slashdot demographic, not having high speed internet is not the end of the world.
It's part of modern society... in developed nations, anyhow.
I think transportation infrastructure should be paid for ONLY through gasoline taxes, which means those big trucks doing the most damage are paying the most for the use of the roads.
If you think that would make the trucks pay for their fair share of the damage, thinking is precisely what you aren't doing. They only consume five to ten times as much fuel as cars, but they do far more than five to ten times as much of the road damage. Basing all road maintenance on gas taxes would place the most unfair burden squarely on the people who damage the roads the least — motorcyclists. That would be followed up in unfairness by people who drive lightweight cars without low rolling resistance tires, who also do basically no road damage whatsoever in the course of normal road use.
And make no mistake - I probably drive a lot more than you (I'm at 200k with my 10 year old car, the average is supposedly around 12k/year, not 20k).
Unless it's a serious land yacht with cookie-cutter tires, you'd be getting absolutely robbed if all the road maintenance came from fuel taxes.