Devin
Well-known member
SanDust said:The idea isn't that a private toll road would be more efficient, it's that that people should pay for the services that they use and the costs they impose on others. For example, if you can drive on the freeway at any time but choose to do it at rush hour, then you're adding to the congestion. That's your right but you should pay for the time delay you've imposed on other drivers. This is the same concept that says that drivers of ICE vehicles should pay the costs of the health problems they create for those living near freeways or that tobacco companies should pay for the health costs their products impose on society.awallis said:Ah, the myth that EVERYTHING is more "efficient" if it is private...
A "congestion tax" is designed to have drivers pay for the congestion they create. Since AFAIK a Nissan Leaf imposes the identical amount of congestion as does a Nissan Sentra, the drivers of both cars should pay the same tax. In this case the "tax" comes in the form of a "toll" you pay to avoid the congestion and to decrease it for other drivers, but the principle is the same.
As an FYI, I-15 in San Diego has implemented this system and it works well. You can read about it here: http://fastrak.511sd.com/GettingStarted.aspx
Sounds like you're a supporter of London style congestion charging. As in, if you enter the Los Angeles metro area by ANY road you pay a fee. That fee costs $13/day at current rates. If you really advocate people paying for the congestion they cause, this is the solution. Note that I am not against congestion charging, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
I think our point here has nothing to do with the fact that we think we are entitled because we bought EVs. It's that we made a "deal" with the state to purchase a certain type of vehicle in order to help the state reach it's emissions goals as it is legally required to do. Part of that "deal" was that we receive HOV access stickers. Now a subsidiary of the state wants to revoke that part of the deal, yet we've fulfilled our end of the bargain.
If, for example, Level3 (a major internet backbone provider) decides to no longer let AT&T use their network to transmit data and you are an AT&T customer under a 2 year contract would you not expect AT&T to find a way (dealing with other vendors etc) to continue to provide you with internet service? Or would you think that because you were getting such a great rate on internet service you have no right to demand that they fulfill their end of the agreement and happily pay AT&T for the duration of your contract yet receive no service in exchange. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the customer standpoint.