5 ms·

Both tolls or the requirement to have an "expensive car" (electric) quickly become discrimination against poor people. Possibly unintentional discrimination. I

Both tolls or the requirement to have an "expensive car" (electric) quickly become discrimination against poor people. Possibly unintentional discrimination. I think it should be simple occupancy based only - vehicles with 3 occupants or more only.

dublinben 5y ago
Scarce goods being expensive isn't discriminatory. Even if it were, the most direct way to address it would be to just give money to people who lack it, or offer a means-tested discount. "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, are more likely to depend on public transportation and suffer the consequences of living near polluted highways. They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Scarce goods being expensive isn't discriminatory. Would you be saying this if we were talking about high commuter rail fares or park fees that are used as a backhanded way to "class up the place"? Because that's basically what tolls are. >"Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, Not in the context of toll roads. They don't go an extra 5mi to whole foods. They don't take frivolous trips. But none of that is what tolls are trying to solve. Tolls are trying to solve peak commute hour demand. This is a use case where poor people wind up using roads (or any other form of transit) proportionately more than the wealthy because their jobs tend to be less flexible. Yes, they drive proportionately less for cross-town type stuff and a little less for commuting (because you can't justify a long commute for a poorly paid job) but the ones that do drive don't deserve to be the first kicked off the road so a bunch of HNers can drive 5mph faster. >They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes. What? What? Do you seriously believe this? Poor people benefit massively from reduced cost (in time, money and frustration) because their other options are more curtailed so being able to economically justify a trip to Walmart to save 10% over the local option (or whatever) or a different commute to a job that pays marginally more is of larger benefit.
- alpha_squared 5y ago
  > "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, are more likely to depend on public transportation and suffer the consequences of living near polluted highways. They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes. Unsure if you're familiar with LA traffic patterns and driving habits, but that really isn't true. Except for living near polluted highways, that's true. If anything, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commute further.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people Big fat "citation needed" here. I'm pretty well off, and drive very little, because I can afford to live in a place where I can walk to most of my destinations, and I have an office-type job that lets me work from home (and not drive to an office), as opposed to working somewhere that requires me to be in person, like a service job. At least in the bay area, the "poor people" you are talking about get pushed out of the main population centers, and have to commute longer and longer to get to their jobs. If anything, I would say "poor people" drive much more. But I expect this is also a function of location, and other factors.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dublinben 5y ago

Scarce goods being expensive isn't discriminatory. Even if it were, the most direct way to address it would be to just give money to people who lack it, or offer a means-tested discount. "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, are more likely to depend on public transportation and suffer the consequences of living near polluted highways. They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Scarce goods being expensive isn't discriminatory. Would you be saying this if we were talking about high commuter rail fares or park fees that are used as a backhanded way to "class up the place"? Because that's basically what tolls are. >"Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, Not in the context of toll roads. They don't go an extra 5mi to whole foods. They don't take frivolous trips. But none of that is what tolls are trying to solve. Tolls are trying to solve peak commute hour demand. This is a use case where poor people wind up using roads (or any other form of transit) proportionately more than the wealthy because their jobs tend to be less flexible. Yes, they drive proportionately less for cross-town type stuff and a little less for commuting (because you can't justify a long commute for a poorly paid job) but the ones that do drive don't deserve to be the first kicked off the road so a bunch of HNers can drive 5mph faster. >They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes. What? What? Do you seriously believe this? Poor people benefit massively from reduced cost (in time, money and frustration) because their other options are more curtailed so being able to economically justify a trip to Walmart to save 10% over the local option (or whatever) or a different commute to a job that pays marginally more is of larger benefit.
alpha_squared 5y ago
> "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people, are more likely to depend on public transportation and suffer the consequences of living near polluted highways. They will disproportionately benefit from anti-congestion policies like tolling highway lanes. Unsure if you're familiar with LA traffic patterns and driving habits, but that really isn't true. Except for living near polluted highways, that's true. If anything, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commute further.
kelnos 5y ago
> "Poor people" already drive less than higher income people Big fat "citation needed" here. I'm pretty well off, and drive very little, because I can afford to live in a place where I can walk to most of my destinations, and I have an office-type job that lets me work from home (and not drive to an office), as opposed to working somewhere that requires me to be in person, like a service job. At least in the bay area, the "poor people" you are talking about get pushed out of the main population centers, and have to commute longer and longer to get to their jobs. If anything, I would say "poor people" drive much more. But I expect this is also a function of location, and other factors.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]