4 ms·
It's not replacing the money that gets spent on cars. People buying a new car are buying it because they need it now, they need to get around today, not in 10 y
by imgabe 4y ago
It's not replacing the money that gets spent on cars. People buying a new car are buying it because they need it now, they need to get around today, not in 10 years when the new train gets built. They're still going to buy the car and then have to pay the tax to build the transit on top of that.
- arcticbull 4y agoSo you've identified the chicken and the egg, I agree, which is why we finance these things. By the time its built that money won't need to be spent on cars anymore on an ongoing basis.
- imgabe 4y agoI'm all for public transport, but lying to people and saying it's going to be zero cost because it will completely supplant what they spend on cars is not the way to get support for it. A train or bus line that goes to 20 specific places and nowhere else is not a substitute for a car that can go directly to any place, whether across town or across the country. We should absolutely invest in public transport, but let's not pretend it isn't going to take making spending money on it a priority. It doesn't come for free and it doesn't completely eliminate the need for cars. It also requires the entire development to shift to be much, much denser. It's not like "oh we just issue some bonds to build a rail line and then nobody ever has to buy a car again".