3 ms·
It's sad that making lower earners' lives even more difficult would even be a consideration in the first place. Increasing capacity would also result in taking
by SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
It's sad that making lower earners' lives even more difficult would even be a consideration in the first place.
Increasing capacity would also result in taking more vehicles off the road.
- bluGill 7y agoIncreasing capacity can only be done with money, which needs to come from somewhere - most likely a tax increase elsewhere that will hit not only those same poor people, but also their neighbors who walk to work. Peak fares to encourage people to work non-peak hours if possible can shift demand enough to mean you don't need build more transit now saving a lot of money now. Eventually there is no substitution for building more, but better utilization can ease that somewhat.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoI agree that it is sad, but it is a real consideration. Nearly every environmental proposal has the potential increase hardship on low earners. Most commonly, this comes in the form of higher costs for consumer products, utilities, and housing. There are are a lot of similarities with road congestion pricing going into effect in San Diego and NYC, and planned for LA and SF. Who will bear the greater burden, high earners who can easily pay the fee or low earners with rigid schedules.