The costs are highest, dramatically so, in built up and urban areas which isn't surprising given the higher congestion & higher density of people to feel the adverse effects of air/noise pollution & get run over. It's only really co2 emissions that are even
Subsidy is somewhat hyperbolic but I don't think inaccurate, particularly when considering elements such as parking where storing motor vehicles in the public road (or on the pavement) is widely tolerated often for free or, at most, for a charge well below the market rate of the land taken.
Since no one's talking about the complete removal of motor traffic that's a bit of a strawman.Carlton green wrote: ↑20 Aug 2021, 8:50am One aspect of all of this that has not been discussed is the cost to society of the removal of motorised personal transport, my instinct is that the cost will be massive compared to the cost of keeping it.
Charging a fair price for usage isn't removal, even if causes since behaviour change. As noted this is largely a matter for urban areas, rural usage of cars isn't really a major issue with the exception of co2 probably being undervalued.
As far as cities go, the evidence base is fairly extensive that 'bashing' motorists is actually the only really effective way to get them out of cars. Some of that's chicken/egg with the limited road space, you cannot create quality routes for cycling and public transport without taking it from private motor traffic. However the space left will still be clogged up so congestion charges have a net benefit in filtering out the unnecessary trips and supply side constraints such as converting on street motor vehicle parking into cycle hangers and greenery also have a role to play.
As for electoral viability. It's been proven time and again that, in urban areas, motorist bashing is actually a vote winner if the politicians have the will to see the changes through.