←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
maerF0x0 ◴[] No.43985046[source]
Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious.

The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like highlighting how many fewer chicken deaths would occur if we created an omnivore or meat tax.

IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. How much fewer social interaction is happening across the distances that those car based trips used to occur. And how much harder is it to get goods into the areas. Is less economic activity happening.

In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.

replies(12): >>43985091 #>>43985160 #>>43985212 #>>43985245 #>>43985252 #>>43985271 #>>43985285 #>>43985399 #>>43985482 #>>43985872 #>>43985908 #>>44001228 #
zzzeek ◴[] No.43985091[source]
there should be a meat tax, btw. I eat a ton of steak but it's costing the ecosystem dearly
replies(2): >>43985267 #>>43990702 #
shermantanktop ◴[] No.43985267[source]
How high would the tax have to be to get you to stop eating so much meat?
replies(2): >>43985393 #>>43985608 #
1. tayo42 ◴[] No.43985608[source]
For me 20 dollars a pound to push it into a treat territory.

I don't know know what would replace it though.