The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

Re:The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally M... by WillPostForFood on Thursday April 04, 2019 @10:51AM (#19572989)

"it's a way to make sure people who need the road most are the ones who get to use it"

It is too regressive to achieve that end. If you have a lot of money, it is a trivial cost for convenience. If you are poor, but would really benefit from road access, you still may not be able to afford it. You could easily frame this as "keep the poor off the road so the rich don't have to deal with traffic".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally M... by CalRobert on Thursday April 04, 2019 @12:23PM (#19574129)

But we already do that with homes, so why not be consistent and do it with cars?

Anyway, making walking and cycling as crappy as possible by giving people congested, polluted, dangerous streets is pretty inconsiderate to poor people as is.

And the article specifically mentions waivers for low income people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally M... by closeparen on Thursday April 04, 2019 @03:05PM (#19575953)

Congestion makes cycling a little nicer, since the cars are slower and more predictable, and you’re the one zipping past them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally M... by CalRobert on Thursday April 04, 2019 @03:29PM (#19576198)

I've cycled in lots of congested cities. This isn't completely wrong, but it's like going from one to two when we should aim for ten.

But true, the _worst_ for cycling is very busy but still fast roads. Wilshire blvd on a Saturday comes to mind

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally M... by bobthepanda on Thursday April 04, 2019 @12:34PM (#19574262)

There are rebates for specific use cases like that. It’s a lot cheaper than just fire hosing subsidies for everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]