this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
872 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

59588 readers
3051 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I agree with you.

In my area, we're widening a highway, which will cost $3-4B. We had a train project estimate that was rejected that totally would've replaced my commute that was estimated at ~$1B and was a prerequisite for a major company bringing more jobs here. We did the highway and not the train...

Overhauling transit just isn't practical politically.

That said, I'm generally against subsidies and in favor of Piguovian taxes. I think we should:

  • eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels and EVs
  • increase taxes on large, heavy vehicles and gas to fully fund roads (remove road infrastructure from general taxes)
  • funnel money saved from the above into mass transit - our entire transit system costs $20 times the annual ridership
[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think much of north america is dug so deep into car centric planning that making drivers pay the full cost would be too expensive for a significant portion of the population and workforce. I think the alternatives need to exist before the taxation because many people are constrained to their car being their only reliable way to get to work.

Making that cost more could put huge financial stress on a family whereas building the rail before the taxation could provide a cheaper alternative before the taxation even begins.

I'm thinking we'd calculate the average cost for driving a car based on a set of metrics (curb weight, miles driven, etc), then apply discounts for certain cars (older cars, EVs, etc). The bulk of the impact would be on large trucks and wealthy people. That would increase costs for shipped products (and encourage local production), which would be balanced out by better mass transit.

It should certainly be phased in to avoid a big shock, but that should be the goal. It turns out that driving for me is cheaper than taking transit because roads are so heavily subsidized. If I had to pay for my actual use, transit would look a lot more attractive.