this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
161 points (98.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

16216 readers
467 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you so much! I'd like to know more of the details on what reprioritizing means in this context, I'm not certain a dollar off of fares is equivalent to some meaningful green energy projects but at least according to this article they're simply moving from grants to loans which on its surface isn't the worst thing. I think grants make more projects possible regardless of their economic feasibility, while loans are potentially more self-sufficient and reoccurring.

I'd also have liked to see a push for more trains, trams, and street cars. Buses seem to me to be the worst of public transit options. But I'm happy they're getting more long term funding. Roads are a plight but if it helps the UK people value public transit more that's a good thing in my book.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The sorts of countries involved can’t necessarily afford the loans. This is going to have a big negative impact in the developing world.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Ya, that's the sort of underhand cruelty that I expect from a centralist party. I can understand the desire for countries to put most of their money to local projects, but I have no doubt this was a small portion. These sorts of projects have high returns on several important metrics, not even accounting for the impact the western world has had on the southern countries we pillaged.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Burnham has promised a lot, but Britain is broke. Every wonderous policy is going to have to come from cuts. He’s signalled a massive investment in defence, and that’s going to hit welfare hard.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

"... (Has) To come from cuts" is not how I would put it. Britain could tax the ultra-wealthy out of existence and remove housing as an investment vehicle and they'd be able to leave welfare intact. Every dollar taken out of the quality of living of the average citizen is a choice to give that dollar to the rich. Conservative governments shouldn't be allowed to do this and people need to be educated on what wealth inequality means for the average Joe.

#TaxWealthNotWork

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

Burnham has under 3 years. It’s not realistic.