I agree with Pierre Poilievre: The next election should be about the carbon tax.

  • Basilisk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The problem is that “drive less transit more” is only an option if you live where transit is viable. If they were simultaneously investing money (or even reinvesting the carbon tax into) into subsidies for transit systems, cycling improvements, walkable cities, and the like so that these alternatives are accessible to everyone then there would be at least a carrot to go along with that stick. But there’s virtually no amount of tax that will ever make trading a 30 minute car ride for 2 hours on and off with multiple transfers with the bus a reasonable alternative. And there’s no way to get more people into buses or trains that are crammed full to the point of skipping stops even if you could somehow convince people to make that trade.

    • Oderus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Viability is subjective. You can take public transit but you chose not to because of the extra time it takes, not because it’s not possible.

      Driving less doesn’t mean not driving at all. If you have to drive some portion and transit the rest, that’s still less driving.

      If you chose to live far from work, then you’ve placed yourself in a difficult position so don’t expect the city to conjure up a bus route just for you. Living closer to work or working closer to home are options but you’d likely find a reason to not do either.

      At what point would the city add more buses? Before you decide to take more transit? That’s nonsensical. Demand comes first, not supply.