3 ms·

Less pushing, more enticing please. If you give people a better option, they will take it.

• thebradbain 5y ago
  Better options need money, unfortunately. And barring a complete change in how the US works [1], that money isn’t there at a federal level. That leaves cities with no other option than to pay for a better option on their own — by raising taxes (e.g. congestion pricing, gas taxes, tolled roads), which also has the side effect of disincentivizing driving [1] the infrastructure bill that’s looking to pass, while it gives much needed funding to public transit, still centers car-centric planning, and nothing paradigm-shifting (e.g. a comprehensive regional high speed rail network, a dedicated bus line on every street, a protected bike lane on every arterial) will likely come from it.
  • _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Agreed. The issue was that in the thread so far it seemed to have a "punish the unbelievers who drive" feel to it. Happy to tax one option to support a better option. In a social practice sense I'd prefer transparency to see the tax money actually making a better future. But this is often lost or not communicated.
• SilverRed 5y ago
  These are both the same thing. If I say "I will give you $20 to not drive" or "I will take $20 from you if you drive", the only thing that really matters is that there is a $20 price differential between two actions so you will be at a $20 disadvantage to do the current thing regardless of how you word it. Money and wealth is relative so the actual final amount doesn't matter as much as how much you have compared to the average person.
  • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    And if we were all emotionless machines, you'd be right. But we're not, so you're not right.