Even if all people outside the city centers would suddenly switch to public transport, if you wanted to bring the density anywhere near to be convenient, it would be economical suicide. Public transport is only economical in very dense population centers.
mondoman712@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
That’s true now because 1. Most people in these areas drive and 2. Roads and driving are heavily subsidised. You’re not going to have the same service in small towns as in big cities, but you could certainly provide something useful.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Of course they drive. We are “well connected” here, which means there is a bus every hour most of the day.
You’ll need roads for the buses, too, unless you have flying ones, and a bus has several thousand times the wear and tear on roads as a car. And: public transport is heavily subsided, while fuel for cars is already heavily taxed. In fact, those taxes would easily cover road building and maintenance here is those taxes would not just vanish in the common budget.
mondoman712@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
If you’re at the point of worrying about how much wear on the roads your buses are doing, it’s time to lay down some rails.
Where do you live that actually taxes fuel enough to cover the entire cost of the externalities of cars? A study shows it doesn’t in Massachusets, and this shows it doesn’t in Europe
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I don’t know why they did not include all the taxes on fuel into the study. There are several different taxes, and together they are way higher than what this chart suggests.
Currently, we have prices between 2 and 3 euro per litre here, of which the vast majority is taxes of all sorts.