Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff
I think commercial van drivers can afford to have their millionaire clients pay a few extra dollars for their services.
Who congestion pricing does affect is maintenance workers who would save tens of minutes per trip from reduced traffic congestion. In these tens of minutes, these workers could get to other clients and earn way more money instead of sitting still in unrelenting gridlock.
Look, I’m tired of this, as I feel like I’m just repeating myself. This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it’s basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.
A standard leftwing position should be against market solutions to problems, unless there’s very good evidence, and consultation, that this is what everyone wants.
You are still talking about how cars and driving should be affordable when they should not be.
Cars are an expense that are paid for in the blood of humans and animals. Cars literally kill millions every year. Air and noise pollution kill more.
While you are in support of cars, I am against cars. You think that poor people should own cars because of equity. I think that poor people should not own cars because nobody should own cars.
There is an ongoing global ecocide going on right now. The Anthropocene is the sixth mass extinction. I do not care that you care that cars should be affordable. Cars should not be affordable. Externalities should be priced in. Every time you drive, the world pays in blood.
Fuck cars.
P.S. I’m not sure where you got the idea that to be leftist is to be anti-market, especially to be opposed to all market-based incentives. China does a lot of that stuff. Maybe you should look into it. Congestion pricing is a market-based solution that is empirically shown to work, as seen in London and Stockholm. Please read the linked article next time before you comment. No investigation, no right to speak.
Also, I don’t really know what to say in response to this. First of all, it’s not “basic econ101” that “supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest of us.” An example of a free market good that has been made affordable to the poorest amongst us are basic smartphones. They cost like $20 now. But also I’m not sure how this is relevant at all to the topic of a congestion tax, which is specifically supposed to suppress demand to increase the amount of fixed supply that can be allocated to each user.
This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it’s basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.
Actually, this is a good overall view on where I’m coming from. This is about Toronto, but it’s overall the gist I’m (poorly) attempting to communicate:
You can hate cars all you want. I see where you might have got the idea I love cars, but in fact like a reasonable person I look at car-centric infrastructure as a bad thing.
However, like a reasonable person, I can also see how workers are tied to that infrastructure. Workers need cars to hold jobs in today’s society. Making driving more expensive makes it harder for working class people to get to their jobs.
I don’t really know how much more straightforward I can be.
Bringing in environmental considerations to this seems on the surface like it’s relevant but it’s not. Yes, everyone needs to stop driving cars. Increasing the cost of driving will mean that people who have the ability will think about other methods of transport. Many people cannot, and making cars more expensive just puts the burden on poorer people to survive.
At some point, I think it’s important to break down what talking about increasing the cost of driving as an environmental win actually means. It means that poorer people will not be able to afford to drive, and so will lose their jobs. The rich don’t give a crap about a couple of bucks extra - they don’t ride public transit for entirely different reasons.
Anyway, thanks for telling me very aggressively that I’m wrong, dumb, uninformed, and should not have an opinion. I actually think you haven’t thought through your views and considered what effect environmental policy can have on vulnerable people. And if you think that means I support cars, well I’m not sure what to tell you.
I think commercial van drivers can afford to have their millionaire clients pay a few extra dollars for their services.
Who congestion pricing does affect is maintenance workers who would save tens of minutes per trip from reduced traffic congestion. In these tens of minutes, these workers could get to other clients and earn way more money instead of sitting still in unrelenting gridlock.
Look, I’m tired of this, as I feel like I’m just repeating myself. This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it’s basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.
A standard leftwing position should be against market solutions to problems, unless there’s very good evidence, and consultation, that this is what everyone wants.
You are still talking about how cars and driving should be affordable when they should not be.
Cars are an expense that are paid for in the blood of humans and animals. Cars literally kill millions every year. Air and noise pollution kill more.
While you are in support of cars, I am against cars. You think that poor people should own cars because of equity. I think that poor people should not own cars because nobody should own cars.
There is an ongoing global ecocide going on right now. The Anthropocene is the sixth mass extinction. I do not care that you care that cars should be affordable. Cars should not be affordable. Externalities should be priced in. Every time you drive, the world pays in blood.
Fuck cars.
P.S. I’m not sure where you got the idea that to be leftist is to be anti-market, especially to be opposed to all market-based incentives. China does a lot of that stuff. Maybe you should look into it. Congestion pricing is a market-based solution that is empirically shown to work, as seen in London and Stockholm. Please read the linked article next time before you comment. No investigation, no right to speak.
Also, I don’t really know what to say in response to this. First of all, it’s not “basic econ101” that “supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest of us.” An example of a free market good that has been made affordable to the poorest amongst us are basic smartphones. They cost like $20 now. But also I’m not sure how this is relevant at all to the topic of a congestion tax, which is specifically supposed to suppress demand to increase the amount of fixed supply that can be allocated to each user.
Actually, this is a good overall view on where I’m coming from. This is about Toronto, but it’s overall the gist I’m (poorly) attempting to communicate:
https://www.socialist.ca/node/3223
Here’s another good one, but about London. Similar gist.
https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/can-congestion-charges-work/
Also, there was one I posted in a different comment specifically about NYC.
You can hate cars all you want. I see where you might have got the idea I love cars, but in fact like a reasonable person I look at car-centric infrastructure as a bad thing.
However, like a reasonable person, I can also see how workers are tied to that infrastructure. Workers need cars to hold jobs in today’s society. Making driving more expensive makes it harder for working class people to get to their jobs.
I don’t really know how much more straightforward I can be.
Bringing in environmental considerations to this seems on the surface like it’s relevant but it’s not. Yes, everyone needs to stop driving cars. Increasing the cost of driving will mean that people who have the ability will think about other methods of transport. Many people cannot, and making cars more expensive just puts the burden on poorer people to survive.
At some point, I think it’s important to break down what talking about increasing the cost of driving as an environmental win actually means. It means that poorer people will not be able to afford to drive, and so will lose their jobs. The rich don’t give a crap about a couple of bucks extra - they don’t ride public transit for entirely different reasons.
Anyway, thanks for telling me very aggressively that I’m wrong, dumb, uninformed, and should not have an opinion. I actually think you haven’t thought through your views and considered what effect environmental policy can have on vulnerable people. And if you think that means I support cars, well I’m not sure what to tell you.