• Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    the pic is in SF i assume, yea its still a car centric city despite alot of bicycle paths, cars provide more revenue to the cities via dmv registraitons, taxes, gases, businesses, and commute through the bridges bay bridge always busy asf. “non-car” zones reduces that revenue source.

    • SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I’m not sure how California works, but that’s wholly inaccurate for Wisconsin, and most other states. Gas taxes and registration fees go to the state, and they do not even cover the whole state transportation budget. Non-car zones area far, far more economically productive than car-oriented areas. Strong Towns has a whole series of articles about it, based on data analysis performed by a consultant called Urban3.

      I did the numbers once on the apartment building that I lived in, with ground-floor retail, and it absolutely blew the nearby Walmart out of the water as far as return on investment for the city. More jobs per acre, more taxes per acre, less infrastructure cost, the whole deal.

      Yes, there’s this persistent myth in America that cars are good for the economy and local business. It is a myth, though. When you actually look at the real-world numbers, cars are destroying cities financially.