All I'm saying is that you have to pay to use certain roads at certain times and that this is a reasonable way for the government to alleviate congestion and is preferable to alternatives in that it brings market mechanisms in to determine who uses those certain roads and those certain times as opposed to other government means of doing easing congestion (i.e. quotas).
Far Left Liberal San Fran Considers Taxing People Entering The City
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
All I'm saying is that you have to pay to use certain roads at certain times and that this is a reasonable way for the government to alleviate congestion and is preferable to alternatives in that it brings market mechanisms in to determine who uses those certain roads and those certain times as opposed to other government means of doing easing congestion (i.e. quotas).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yeah, it is reasonable if you are one of the ones that can AFFORD the plan. But for those that have to take mass transit and add the time and inconvenience of mass transit in San Fran... well thats just too bad for them.
People have already PAID to use those roads. A regressive tax to help the wealthy drivers is bullshit. Period.
What's your alternative?
My basic position is that congested roads are a bad thing for all involved, the public generally, the communities where the congested roads are located and the drivers on the congested roads. It is beneficial to have less congested roads. The best way to do that is through congestion pricing.
And I personally don't drive much. Last time I was in San Fran I took BART from the airport to my hotel and used taxis and the bus to get around the ciry. Took a ferry to Sausalito and used zipcar for a trip up to Sonoma.
KingCondanomation
New member
The New York Times thinks it would not be good for New York either:
"A Cure Worse than the Disease?
How London’s “Congestion Pricing” System
Could Hurt New York City’s Economy"
Key point in the article:
"Especially hard-hit would be working- and middle-class New Yorkers who commute to
the CBD by car from outlying areas in Queens and the other boroughs outside
Manhattan; and small to mid-sized firms whose business requires frequent trips to the
CBD."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/empire_zone/20070425_congestion.pdf
"A Cure Worse than the Disease?
How London’s “Congestion Pricing” System
Could Hurt New York City’s Economy"
Key point in the article:
"Especially hard-hit would be working- and middle-class New Yorkers who commute to
the CBD by car from outlying areas in Queens and the other boroughs outside
Manhattan; and small to mid-sized firms whose business requires frequent trips to the
CBD."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/empire_zone/20070425_congestion.pdf
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so, since YOU identified that it was easier for YOU to not have to make a car payment or insurance, you should force others to recognize the upside of spending less money? yeah, you're a flaming lib.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The fair alternative is to let it stand as it is. Those who CHOOSE to use the alternate methods can do so. But to force one class into submission is not right.
If you don't like the congestion, find an alternative. If you refuse to find an alternative then you have to deal with the congestion.
Like you, I chose to use BART when I went to San Fran in November. I chose to avoid the traffic.
Unless they're women.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
well DUH.... thanks captain obvious. Of course its ok to force women into submission. They are after all not the same value to society. All the whining and complaining. They deserve less.
But this looks at congestion as an inconvenience to drivers and nothing more. Congestion is a whole lot more than that and impacts a people than just the drivers sitting in traffic.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Then shut down the roads to everyone and force them all onto the mass transit system.
Well, that just goes without saying.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
true, unless you are having to say it to a woman... they need things explained over and over and over again before they get it.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Hence, commerce.
What sophistry. Vehicles moving in unison with an occasional accident is 'irrational'?
LOL I don't think that means what you think it does
you fail. try again later
Socrtease
Verified User
you are aware that driving is privilege right?
Apparently one that should be reserved only to the affluent.
Or those that have the option of going to certain parts of the city at other than peak hours.
We're talking about transportation policy. Congestion pricing with revenues used to improve and develop public transit is good transportation policy. Want to help the poor, how about we do it through tax policy?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
only according to a nanny state government. In reality, government has no authority to determine who can travel by what means, unless said person is in custody.
Yeah, by taxing them into buses. That's magical. Let's make sure they can't get ahead and only let them drive during "off-peak" times.
Seriously, this is BS. The fricking party that is supposed to help them is working to keep them down to save the roads for the affluent. Then in another thread a "Conservative" is arguing how great nanny laws could be.