Probably ignores the fact that most public transportation infrastructure and people that use it are located in cities where median salaries are higher. Public transportation commuters can still very much have a lower median salary in that area.
> In 2021, only 5.0 percent of workers with incomes under $25,000 a year took transit to work, while the other 95 percent disproportionately have to pay the mostly regressive taxes that are used to support transit.
Probably good that mass transit was avoided during a pandemic. Can't determine how much it says about the taxes "regressivity" though.
> By comparison highways are mainly paid for out of user fees which aren’t regressive because people pay for only what they use.
Not from the US, but this doesn't seem to be true, if i'm reading [the table on this page](https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/) correctly.
> Of the 4.1 percent of workers who lived in households with no cars in 2021...
My understanding is that life without a car is quite challenging in the US - I'd get one too if I lived there. And yeah, the data [does seem to support it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...). But it's not an argument for cars, just an argument against US urban planning. Requiring an expensive purchase to be able to participate in society is pretty messed up.
> The Times article is correct that debt and the high cost of borrowing for people who have poor credit is a problem, but that is not the fault of the automobile.
> Nor are traffic stops that punitively focus on low-income drivers, which the article also cites, the fault of cars.
And gun violence isn't the gun's fault. It's public-policy-around-the-gun's fault - which is in turn gun advocacy's fault. You can always install metal detectors in schools and put guards everywhere, but you could also, you know, just not have that many guns.* Similarly, you could just put in more public transportation.
> numerous studies have shown that one of the best ways to get people who don’t have access to cars out of poverty is to give them access to an automobile.
I don't believe that we need to choose any single policy over another, but given limited resources I'd prioritize redirecting tax revenue into: - education to give people actual careers - cheap (tax-based, even) healthcare - social safety-nets that support economically vulnerable
Over
> low- or zero-interest loans to low-income people who lack cars so they can buy a decent used or low-cost new car.
Just put in more bus lines. Please. Why do anyone need to take a loan out at all? What happens if they get fired or can't pay the loan for any reason?
* Not going to pretend that anti-gun stances aren't political suicide in the US and that actual feasibility any gun ban is quite questionable. I'm just railing against this denialist blame-shifting attitude and the cartoonish work-arounds it leads to.