Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh
How can you say it's "very easy to explain" then post some unsourced, uncorroborated claims like these?
Maybe the congestion tax just convinced more people to use public transit because it was now a cheaper option? History has shown that when you facilitate driving either by policy or financially, people will always choose it as a way of getting around. In a place like London where congestion was becoming out of control, it's a great way to discourage people from driving, especially when the regional public transportation network is so developed.
Given that "the poors" are often the ones who drive the least because of the prohibitive costs of owning a car, I don't see why you automatically associate a modal shift from driving to public transit to poor people being priced out. What if they're middle/upple middle class people? Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation.
I get it dude, you're for public transit, but as long as it doesn't come to the expense of freeway expansion. Which is sad really, because it has been proven that highway expansion coupled with transit expansion has a cancelling effect due to the induced demand principle (which you don't believe in, for some reason). Expanding roadway capacity whilst expanding your transit system is the best way to double your expenses while not improving mobility in your city.
Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion. You're just like most Americans, not willing to give up your precious car to save the environment and make cities better.
|
Ah, the classic you aren't agreeing with me thus you must not be understanding my superior intellect tactic. Take that rubbish elsewhere. If you don't want to respond to me then don't. Quit telling me about I am unworthy of your responses.
The induced demand principle has no numbers to back it up, has no real data distinguishing it from latent demand, and no one can even provide a number for how much traffic accounts for induced demand at any given time.
Elon Musk describes it perfectly:
"Induced demand is one of the most irrational theories I’ve ever heard. Correlation is not causation. If the transport system exceeds public travel needs, there will be very little traffic. I support anything that improves traffic, as this negatively affects almost everyone."
Has the congestion pricing "encouraged" people to use mass transit more? Maybe. I am not ruling that out like you are ruling out the poor being priced out... But I suspect the latter is happening more often than for reasons other posters have also made clear in this thread with numbers and sources to back it up.
You are correct I am for public transit though the last part of your assumption is only a half truth. I am not for the mentality that wants to build mass transit and views this issue like you do as a zero sum equation for car commuters. What is even more ironic is you made an argument that car drivers do not pay for their roads--completely ignoring it when you were proven wrong but not before you accuse me of ignoring points you made--and then go on to admit drivers also
pay for mass transit lines like they have in London with the congestion charge.
So where is the data showing income disparities, cross referencing that data with increase in ridership, and providing the entire picture of exactly who is using the London metro, who was affected by the congestion taxes, and what the ultimate outcome will be once the funds from congestion diminish as traffic dies down to eventually being priced out or the city needing makeshift solutions to keep income from flatlining.
But yet there are cities like SLC that have expanded their freeways and mass transit systems, are growing at a massive rate, and not experiencing much traffic congestion increases. Then there are cities like Portland(OR) that has traffic comparable or arguably worse than Dallas(a city 3x its size). I'll let you draw conclusions from that statement.
You also act is if the middle class is immune from being priced out due to higher user fees/car ownership costs made higher by those who want it that way. You act as if the middle class has so much more disposable income than the poor simply because their income is higher. I could respond to that with unnecessary remarks like "Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation." The middle class, just like the poor, are often at a tipping point and increasingly so.
To me, it isn't very hard to see why London charging an arm and a leg to drive into the city centre resulted in a decrease of cars going there but it sure is easy to twist things to support biased agendas.
Here some links to back up various comments I've made since you are insinuating I am pulling this stuff out of my ass. You seem like a smart guy that can put the pieces of the puzzle together since these links are in no particular order. Admittedly I am just being lazy here.
http://theconversation.com/london-co...hat-next-92478
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...udy-says-salt/
https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:6:0::::V,T:,1
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...p_prim5_03.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/721.1.pdf
The data is out there that shows tolls affect the poor the most. I am reading what you are saying and responding to it. Once again if there is something I didn't address and you think I am doing that on purpose, point it out and I will address it. But cut the Weisenheimer shit. It is rude and doesn't help your points. I will always be happy to point out my sources, admit when I have a theory that isn't well backed up, admit when I am wrong, and be happy to address any problems you have with the way I post. I am very busy, have issues like ADHD, and sometimes make these posts in a hurry. So if your issue is with my posts, than say it but constructive criticism helps with you being specific and not making asinine statements like this:
Quote:
|
Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion
|
.