3 ms·

>Changing people's habits in favor of public transit If that is what this is about then why dont they spend money making the public transit options better? The

>Changing people's habits in favor of public transit If that is what this is about then why dont they spend money making the public transit options better? There are dozens of unbuilt subway lines, areas with poor or no public transit and large amounts of crime all of which making a car a far superior choice. Taxing the car until people put up with an inferior transit service is not an improvement.

arcticbull 3y ago
More ridership demand and more taxes on car owners means more money to build transit. Also a more vocal group of people demanding it.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Why should the people who have been underserved for decades be the ones to bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of building new services?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    They're dramatically over-served. Cars are a luxury. They've been afforded free roads, free parking and free externalities for like a hundred years. Free ride's over.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Living in a poor or lower middle class outer suburb and commuting by car is slower and hundreds of dollars a month more expensive than living in the urban core and taking public transportation. I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about. Do you think everyone lives in a low density suburban sprawl where public transportation is completely impractical?
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        > Living in a poor or lower middle class outer suburb and commuting by car is slower and hundreds of dollars a month more expensive than living in the urban core and taking public transportation. Totally. Because it's wildly inefficient for everyone to own an average 0.8 $35,000 blocks of metal that are in motion an average of 1.02 hours per day (idle almost 96% of the time). That requires roads, lights, signs, police, fire trucks, ambulances, gas stations/charging ports, insurance, parking, registration and tracking, maintenance, etc. That's before we get to externalities. Yes it's hundreds of dollars more expensive to have a car, but it should be thousands. It's incredibly subsidized. Car owners have been massively over-served, and it's time they directly paid the actual cost of their choices. Car ownership should be a luxury, not a requirement to exist. Especially in lower-middle-class suburbs. All our investments into roads and highways should be redirected towards avoiding it. All parking should be for-pay. Road costs should be born by road users. And yeah, people who make inefficient choices about their transportation should be penalized by usage charges. What makes you think road users have been underserved relative to the literally zero investment in transit made in the US since Eisenhower? Why shouldn't the cost of a dramatically less efficient transportation choice be much higher than a much more efficient transportation choice?
  - occz 3y ago
    The absolute entitled state of mind of the car-owners is beyond baffling.

arcticbull 3y ago

More ridership demand and more taxes on car owners means more money to build transit. Also a more vocal group of people demanding it.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Why should the people who have been underserved for decades be the ones to bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of building new services?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  They're dramatically over-served. Cars are a luxury. They've been afforded free roads, free parking and free externalities for like a hundred years. Free ride's over.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Living in a poor or lower middle class outer suburb and commuting by car is slower and hundreds of dollars a month more expensive than living in the urban core and taking public transportation. I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about. Do you think everyone lives in a low density suburban sprawl where public transportation is completely impractical?
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > Living in a poor or lower middle class outer suburb and commuting by car is slower and hundreds of dollars a month more expensive than living in the urban core and taking public transportation. Totally. Because it's wildly inefficient for everyone to own an average 0.8 $35,000 blocks of metal that are in motion an average of 1.02 hours per day (idle almost 96% of the time). That requires roads, lights, signs, police, fire trucks, ambulances, gas stations/charging ports, insurance, parking, registration and tracking, maintenance, etc. That's before we get to externalities. Yes it's hundreds of dollars more expensive to have a car, but it should be thousands. It's incredibly subsidized. Car owners have been massively over-served, and it's time they directly paid the actual cost of their choices. Car ownership should be a luxury, not a requirement to exist. Especially in lower-middle-class suburbs. All our investments into roads and highways should be redirected towards avoiding it. All parking should be for-pay. Road costs should be born by road users. And yeah, people who make inefficient choices about their transportation should be penalized by usage charges. What makes you think road users have been underserved relative to the literally zero investment in transit made in the US since Eisenhower? Why shouldn't the cost of a dramatically less efficient transportation choice be much higher than a much more efficient transportation choice?
- occz 3y ago
  The absolute entitled state of mind of the car-owners is beyond baffling.