3 ms·
Needing to own a car is a massive financial burden on the poor, who typically pay the cost of a new car for a used car, plus all the maintenance burden of ownin
by ryan_lane 5y ago
Needing to own a car is a massive financial burden on the poor, who typically pay the cost of a new car for a used car, plus all the maintenance burden of owning an older used car.
You're misrepresenting my argument. Increasing access to public transportation greatly reduces the expenses for folks who are poor. Part of making a city dense is making it easy to build, and usually also includes different types of housing, which lowers pricing. Removing parking, and parking minimums makes it easier and cheaper to build.
I'm not advocating cities designed around people for green reasons. I'm advocating for them because I've lived in dense cities, which prioritize people and I've lived in places that are built for cars, and the ones built for people are simply nicer to live in, and generally cheaper to live in.
My current monthly transportation costs are $60 per month.
- toyg 5y agoI do not disagree on the fact that dense cities can work better, particularly in a US context where cities are simply not built for humans. But in an European context, where I am, it is different. Here we already have very mixed environments, and green zealotry often fails to appreciate the long-term economic impact of certain proposals (to be charitable). Before we restrict mobility option, we should ensure that compensation is paid by rich people through increased capital taxation, to funnel funds to public transport - at the very least.