Originally Posted by
tandempower
It doesn't have to think. Let's say a law was passed that prohibited vehicles under 5000lbs curb weight from being on public roads due to safety concerns. Now, suddenly people have to trade in their cars for trucks and SUVs or go car-free. If the trucks/SUVs cost more per month, people are going to have to cough up the extra money. They are going to complain about needing more money and clamor for government to stimulate the economy so they can get it. If government doesn't do that, many just won't be able to afford to drive, and so they will have to find other ways to get to jobs and make money. Then they're going to clamor for more jobs closer to residences and vice-versa, because they can't afford cars. But they are just as happy to get more money so they can afford to drive, plus they think if there's more money to drive than there's more money for everything they want and can't afford, and then comes the dreams of limitless economic expansion and money printing.
I would rather not talk about something that's based on a crazy law that nobody is going to pass.
A bus pass costs @30/month. That's much less than driving. We've had this discussion so many times on this forum, you should ask someone like Machka who seems to have an index for every discussion in every thread. I can't even believe you're questioning that driving costs more than taking the bus, biking, or walking. Why do you think a person would even be living car-free before they got a job if it didn't cost less?
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in relation to all costs of living (housing, transportation, food, recreation, etc) that a car specifically is not a huge part of the equation that's going to have a big impact on how much income is required.