← Back to context

Comment by tossandthrow

6 hours ago

A better idea would just be to let drivers pay the real price for the infrastructure they occupy and their negative externalities.

Then people would likely not have a issue with public transit.

"Let's make car owners more miserable" is a typical sentiment held by young, healthy people who live in dense cities and ride an electric bicycle to work.

Not everyone can do that. Many areas also completely lack the public transit infrastructure needed to support a normal life.

E.g., a couple of days ago, I was shocked to learn just how bad the UK public transport system really is, apparently, outside of major metros (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49445286)

  • The gas lighting in this comment is strong.

    > "Let's make car owners more miserable"

    I proposed to let people pay for the services they use.

    That is not an attack on redistribution to unhealthy older people living outside of the city.

    In the contrary. By reducing the load on the transport infrastructure you make it easier for them to use it.

    And for your wish to redistribute: That can easily be done without the city making the use of the land for roads free. You could literally just give subsidies to people who absolutely need cars.

The negative externalities? On net the benefits are enormously positive, which is why every community around the world down to the very poorest, even illiterate societies (ancient civs were mostly illiterate and still built extensive road networks) will start clearing paths to make transport easier. It's an enormous social net benefit, the free, fast, efficient movement of people from one point of their choosing to another.

  • I read that you think I am proposing to make transport more difficult.

    That is a very far stretch.

    I definitely want to make transport easier. But a 50.000 dollar ticket to entering the previlige of transport is simply not fair.