|
|
|
|
|
by rglullis
689 days ago
|
|
No one is denying the utility of cars. The argument is against (a) car dependency and (b) the fact that its total cost is not fully born by their owners. Also, you can re-read my original comment. Notice the "the point is less about cars vs no cars, but car-centric suburbia development vs higher density urban planning" part, and please realize that talking about London has nothing to do with the original point. |
|
I simply gave my 2c on your question.
> Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs?
Yes. I would. And honestly there really isn't much in it. In the US, basically everyone drives. In the UK, pretty much everyone who pays taxes drives.
At least in my situation, I think that if the costs were moved from general taxation to directly falling on car owners, I'd end up net positive!