Metro will recommend moving forward with congestion pricing, says CEO (fit in, buy)

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by jm1982

This will hurt the the poor and middle class a lot more than the millionaires and billionaires of L.A

Also shouldn’t he have said “people kind “?

Absolutely. The people pushing this movement are clearly patriarchal. They need to put down their Dollar Shave Club razors and get with the program. They're the same type of people who probably worked at Gamestop and didn't refer to their trans customers as, "Ma'aaaaam!"

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

1. This isn't the political forum -- see David's sticky.

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Absolutely. The people pushing this movement are clearly patriarchal. "

Quit pretending to be the moderator and acting like a patriarch.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

2. Taking actions to "get cars off the road" is not a free market solution.

You must have failed Econ 101.

From the Reason Foundation (the original Libertarian think tank) piece I posted earlier in the thread:

"One of the most straightforward means of allocating the supply of something is by charging for its direct use, and the more it is demanded, the higher the charge to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

U.S. gas taxes are insufficient for maintaining and expanding our road network. While drivers have paid to build roadways, they have not paid to maintain them.

Congestion charges impact those who use roadways similar to any other use-based tax or fee. It reduces the externalities of congested roads and highways while directly transitioning the externality costs of driving to those people actually driving. Nobody likes to pay fees, but the most efficient mechanism imposes the cost on those using the resource."

https://reason.org/commentary/conges...-traffic-flow/

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

You must have failed Econ 101.

From the Reason Foundation (the original Libertarian think tank) piece I posted earlier in the thread:

"One of the most straightforward means of allocating the supply of something is by charging for its direct use, and the more it is demanded, the higher the charge to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

U.S. gas taxes are insufficient for maintaining and expanding our road network. While drivers have paid to build roadways, they have not paid to maintain them.

Congestion charges impact those who use roadways similar to any other use-based tax or fee. It reduces the externalities of congested roads and highways while directly transitioning the externality costs of driving to those people actually driving. Nobody likes to pay fees, but the most efficient mechanism imposes the cost on those using the resource."

https://reason.org/commentary/conges...-traffic-flow/

No, I did not fail "Econ 101". But please do explain how banning something bolsters the Libertarian platform.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

No, I did not fail "Econ 101". But please do explain how banning something bolsters the Libertarian platform.

Yes, you failed. Charging a user fee for something is not banning it.

[sean1the1]

I think it's a great idea, I sadly still have never taken the bus since I moved here. If the bus is free I might just take it.

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Absolutely. The people pushing this movement are clearly patriarchal. They need to put down their Dollar Shave Club razors and get with the program. They're the same type of people who probably worked at Gamestop and didn't refer to their trans customers as, "Ma'aaaaam!"

Whats wrong with Dollar shave club? You're clearly going down the wrong path.

[LuvSouthOC]

Cities don't like Uber/Lyft since it is an equalizer and is FAR superior to most crappy mass transit. Notice no mention has been made of this mode of transportation. Who wants to have to sit next to often uncivilized, smelly, dirty mass transit riders if they have a choice? (And yes, I am quite familiar with mass transit having used it for many years = GROSS.)

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

You must have failed Econ 101.

From the Reason Foundation (the original Libertarian think tank) piece I posted earlier in the thread:

"One of the most straightforward means of allocating the supply of something is by charging for its direct use, and the more it is demanded, the higher the charge to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

U.S. gas taxes are insufficient for maintaining and expanding our road network. While drivers have paid to build roadways, they have not paid to maintain them.

Congestion charges impact those who use roadways similar to any other use-based tax or fee. It reduces the externalities of congested roads and highways while directly transitioning the externality costs of driving to those people actually driving. Nobody likes to pay fees, but the most efficient mechanism imposes the cost on those using the resource."

https://reason.org/commentary/conges...-traffic-flow/

Why do regressives think that conservatives are swayed by a Libertarian article? I think they are confused. These are two distinct ways of thinking. I tend strongly Libertarian and did find it persuasive.

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Cities don't like Uber/Lyft since it is an equalizer and is FAR superior to most crappy mass transit. Notice no mention has been made of this mode of transportation. Who wants to have to sit next to often uncivilized, smelly, dirty mass transit riders if they have a choice? (And yes, I am quite familiar with mass transit having used it for many years = GROSS.)

Cities don't like Uber and Lyft for their disruption to the already established cab industry, added congestion, and now aiports due to falling revenues from rental cars. More cars doesnt equal less congestion.