4 ms·
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 w
by 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 agoAgreed. 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.