3 ms·

This seems to be selling use of the public roads to rich people (who can more easily afford the tolls). Isn't this a step backwards for social justice?

by neilv 2y ago

alexchamberlain 2y ago
An alternative take is that people who can only afford mass transit options (without even adding congestion pricing) are now on a level playing field with most commuters, and should experience a better commute less affected by traffic. (This assumes that the mass transit options are invested in, rather than overrun by people switching.)
WillDaSilva 2y ago
Not at all, since those who aren't rich primarily use public transit to get around this area, which benefits massively from reduced car traffic.
nayuki 2y ago
Do you know what it means to be rich? Serious question. It's not "having a lot of money". It's actually "having a lot of options". By definition, rich people will have more ways to get around than poor people. The rich can hire a limo, hop in a helicopter, and even take a trip to space. Is it a social injustice that not everyone can afford a limo, helicopter, or spaceship? I do not think it's bad to take steps to make driving an activity for richer people, to make it a luxury that it initially was when cars were invented. On the flip side of things, look at what the dream of mass-market affordable cars, free highways, and free parking have done to society: Swathes of land wasted for parking, low density cities that kill walking/cycling/transit, millions of people dying in car crashes, endless congestion and lane-widening.
- neilv 2y ago
  > Do you know what it means to be rich? Serious question. A serious question that you immediately proceed to answer, with rhetoric that it's preferable for there to be only the relative few rich elite, who implicitly should enjoy all the luxuries possible in the world, but there should not be these luxuries for the lesser people, since our experiments in permitting the peasants to enjoy small amounts of society's wealth has been a disaster, encroaching upon the enjoyment of the rich, and making the poors uppity?
peterbonney 2y ago
That might be the case in other cities, but in NYC the socioeconomic dynamics are less clear. It’s mostly affluent-to-rich suburbanites that drive to work from outside the city, with rich and poor city residents primarily taking public transit (and to a lesser extent using taxis and car services). Almost no city residents - rich, poor or in between - drive to and from a 9-5 job in Manhattan.
alkonaut 2y ago
Poor people don't drive, they're on the bus. This makes transit better for people who don't drive.
hnpolicestate 2y ago
Their religion is punishing to middle class.

This seems to be selling use of the public roads to rich people (who can more easily afford the tolls). Isn't this a step backwards for social justice?

by neilv 2y ago

This seems to be selling use of the public roads to rich people (who can more easily afford the tolls). Isn't this a step backwards for social justice?

alexchamberlain 2y ago

An alternative take is that people who can only afford mass transit options (without even adding congestion pricing) are now on a level playing field with most commuters, and should experience a better commute less affected by traffic. (This assumes that the mass transit options are invested in, rather than overrun by people switching.)

WillDaSilva 2y ago

Not at all, since those who aren't rich primarily use public transit to get around this area, which benefits massively from reduced car traffic.

nayuki 2y ago

Do you know what it means to be rich? Serious question. It's not "having a lot of money". It's actually "having a lot of options". By definition, rich people will have more ways to get around than poor people. The rich can hire a limo, hop in a helicopter, and even take a trip to space. Is it a social injustice that not everyone can afford a limo, helicopter, or spaceship? I do not think it's bad to take steps to make driving an activity for richer people, to make it a luxury that it initially was when cars were invented. On the flip side of things, look at what the dream of mass-market affordable cars, free highways, and free parking have done to society: Swathes of land wasted for parking, low density cities that kill walking/cycling/transit, millions of people dying in car crashes, endless congestion and lane-widening.

neilv 2y ago
> Do you know what it means to be rich? Serious question. A serious question that you immediately proceed to answer, with rhetoric that it's preferable for there to be only the relative few rich elite, who implicitly should enjoy all the luxuries possible in the world, but there should not be these luxuries for the lesser people, since our experiments in permitting the peasants to enjoy small amounts of society's wealth has been a disaster, encroaching upon the enjoyment of the rich, and making the poors uppity?

peterbonney 2y ago

That might be the case in other cities, but in NYC the socioeconomic dynamics are less clear. It’s mostly affluent-to-rich suburbanites that drive to work from outside the city, with rich and poor city residents primarily taking public transit (and to a lesser extent using taxis and car services). Almost no city residents - rich, poor or in between - drive to and from a 9-5 job in Manhattan.

alkonaut 2y ago

Poor people don't drive, they're on the bus. This makes transit better for people who don't drive.

hnpolicestate 2y ago

Their religion is punishing to middle class.