Sure, personally I think it's worth increasing taxes nearly any amount to keep public roads freely available to everyone.
Rather than charging everyone and giving some people waivers, increase the taxes with a progressive tax rate, where low-wage people pay less.
If you want to take them out and force everyone to use public transportation that's one thing - But if they exist they ought to be subsidized to ensure everyone can use them.
We need more economic equality, not less, particularly when to comes to such important things as basic infrastructure.
We could have all the money in the world for infrastructure and not fix the congestion problem. There's a hard limit to how many cars can physically fit on the roads at a time, and the number of people who want to use the road at rush hour exceeds that limit.
Given the cost of driving in NYC, using congestion pricing to pay for transit would almost certainly be a move that increases, not reduces, equality.
The congestion in NYC makes it dangerous to bike and slows down busses. Allowing cars to own the roads is precisely a "richest wins" approach, at least in Manhattan.
Yes, but why should the debate be framed in terms of only looking at fees or living with congestion? There are other approaches to what is essentially distributing limited resources.
well, there's pricing, or rationing, or some combination (e.g. Pricing, with exceptions for those where we want to accept the externalities as a society for a greater good, like not charging ambulances). Which do you prefer?
Rather than charging everyone and giving some people waivers, increase the taxes with a progressive tax rate, where low-wage people pay less.
If you want to take them out and force everyone to use public transportation that's one thing - But if they exist they ought to be subsidized to ensure everyone can use them.
We need more economic equality, not less, particularly when to comes to such important things as basic infrastructure.
reply