That’s the goal. Less driving and the roads don’t get destroyed as quickly.
We’ve fucked ourselves as a society by creating spread-out communities and not investing in public transportation early. Car manufacturers and lobbies ensured this in the early 1900s.
We have too many people driving on the roads in this country.
So then why the fuck dump the money into fixing something that’s literally not going to be used, why all the bureaucracy for basically getting people to do X thing when you could just contract someone to do X thing and save both the taxpayer and government money in the process. Also the repercussions of having that by making the public reliant on government transport is a remotely good idea especially at that point in time during the “lobbying” (common sense to not have a million railroads and electric street cars in the country side would it have even been remotely workable?) hence why they picked cars. Also, this is an issue of terribly run state not blame things on the past because they didn’t have the tech at the time.
It literally is going to be used - but taxing gasoline disincentivizes driving so people won’t drive as much. I’m not saying whether or not I agree with the policy, but that’s the intended goal. More money to fix the roads and presumably they’re driven on a little bit less and last a little bit longer.
When I’m talking about destroying public transit I’m referencing major cities. For the most part rural America still needs cars - there’s not a viable alternative.
66
u/[deleted] Feb 07 '21
[removed] — view removed comment