this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
188 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12831 readers
1168 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/07/23/koteks-transportation-plan-6-cent-gas-tax-increase-registration-fee-hikes-and-doubled-transit-tax/

I think increasing the payroll tax is a mistake. People who don't own a car should actually be rewarded because they pollute far less, they don't disable workers, they don't require traffic police, they don't emit CO2....

I would replace the payroll tax with a weight tax on huge SUVs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

IMO Kotek has been mostly a lame duck, but these proposals aren't bad. I would invert the 50-30-20 revenue split between state, county, and city because it's almost always cities or counties that are creating and maintaining bike and transit infrastructure, while today the state's largest initiatives are still highway expansions. Highways are so very money-hungry.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't like that they are planning to have both a electric vehicle fee and a per miles charge fee later on. Like it should be one or the other, not both. Otherwise they just need to make the 30$ fee for all vehicles.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

Yeah adding a $30 fee specifically to electrics seems asinine, to the point that I'm hoping that is a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter. I don't mind new fees, but new fees added to electrics that don't get added to combustions seems regressive.

As for the per-mile charge, I like that and think it should apply to all vehicles. Flat fees don't sufficiently or accurately compensate for road use, but a mileage charge does. People who are on the road all day should be paying more than people who only drive to get groceries, even if it's for their job, because they put equivalently more wear on the system.