These Canada numbers from IIHS do not match official figures at all. Over the past 10 years, Canada traffic fatalities have not decreased but have remained fairly steady at around 2000/year.

Granted, that is still better than that of the US – but nonetheless a poor outcome compared to other countries.

Get rid of the car and you’ll have plenty of room in the garage.

I keep around a few beater bikes. If one gets stolen then oh well I’m out $75, which is less than 1 tank of gas.

https://sd38.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-signs-bill-speed-development-bike-lanes-walkways-coastal-areas

There is tons of stats at data.bts.gov, BLS, and Federal reserve FRED system. Image above is from https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Transportation-Economic-Trends-Transportation-Spen/ida7-k95k/

Basically, what we find is that wealthier people have bigger carbon footprint. They drive more miles, own more and bigger cars. They also fly more miles. What you are calling “degrees of obligation” is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. The suburbanite driving 50 miles a day in a BMW SUV is the one being impacted here, not the low-income worker taking the bus or driving an old Corolla.

Also note that driving is highly subsidized, and if the gas tax isn’t raised to cover those costs then that money still has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is other government programs, which low-income are much more highly dependent on.

poor people are more obligated to drive and gas costs are a larger proportion of their budget.

Sorry, but unless you are disabled…nobody is obligated to drive.

And in any case, USDOT statistics show wealthy and poor people have very similar cost burden (as percent of household budget) when it comes to gas costs. That is because income strongly correlates with vehicles miles driven; i.e. the wealthier you are the more you drive. That trend is seen in both rural and urban areas.

The greatest trick ever pulled by oil industry PR was to convince leftists that the gas tax is regressive.

400kg makes a huge difference. Road damage increases proportional to the fourth power of axle load, which is like 2x in your example.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the CO2 gasoline equivalent for coal-generated EV is just 29mpg; i.e. no better than a decent ICE.

https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

The grant was from a program called Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program. The program was probably canceled by Trump because it had the word Equity in it.

Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing.

That depends on where the electricity comes from. Instead of ‘EV’ we should really be calling these things Natural Gas cars.

Trump should focus on Ohio instead:

“You need to foist that limpy bitch onto someone else!”

Slap a sticker on it (this one is from Lake Tahoe):

“That number is also greater than the total number of criminal summonses issued to cyclists in the past seven years.”

I don’t buy that at all.

Thus far, Feds have provided some $15+ billion to CA for various projects related to HSR. If the state hadn’t completely blown its budget and schedule, that is more than enough to have gotten the starter line going. As well, we can look at BART-SJ which is getting $5+ billion – again more than enough to build that project if VTA hadn’t gone off the deep-end with its deep bore design alternative (current budget is now $12+ billion).

Which isn’t to say there are major issues with road vs. transit funding at the Federal level, but California’s problems are largely its own doing.

He also wants to bring back car traffic to Market St, which had previously been restricted to bikes/transit/delivery vehicles.