• @FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 months ago

    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.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      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.