• joshhsoj1902
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of those improvements do and are happening though, but ridership is used to inform the changes.

    The denser parts of cities do have transit that accomplishes what you’re asking for.

    • Someone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately a lot of people don’t live in cities at all, let alone the dense parts with the service like you describe. EVs may not be the answer overall, but for many people across the country they’re the only viable first step away from ICE vehicles.

      Right now with affordability the way it is, it feels like we’re getting a lot of stick without much carrot.

      • joshhsoj1902
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of people do love in dense areas in cities though. That’s what makes them dense.

        And programs like the carbon pricing makes those places more attractive to build denser housing.

        EVs don’t even need to be the only alternative, if the carbon pricing is encouraging someone to buy a more fuel efficient ICE vehicle, the incentive is still working.

        I still have such a hard time understanding how people are calling the carbon pricing setup a stick, most of us are getting more money back from the program. Yes overall oil prices worldwide have gone up since the program started, but international oil prices aren’t impacted by Canadian carbon pricing policy…

        • Someone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not everything is black and white. I can agree with the idea of a carbon tax while also acknowledging how it can feel less fair to different people in different areas.