|
Being poor sucks. A totally positive green transit policy can't be the only bullet in your chamber to solve it. A congestion charge can be used to improve and make operationally possible non-car transportation options. It is one of several pillars in changing how people get around. Car congestion and infrastructure in Boston, like in many cities, obstructs impactful carbon emissions reductions. Sorry if you just plain don't like trains, I guess. I guess I'd also be cool with an outright car ban in the urban core. Does that feel better? Not sure how you can make wholesale societal change in 11 years possible in a way that doesn't involve pain or inconvenience. Insanite fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 30, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Insanite posted:Being poor sucks. A totally positive green transit policy can't be the only bullet in your chamber to solve it. How does a congestion charge improve or make operationally possible trains or giving BRT dedicated lanes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
One problem is that the people in charge don't want to inconvenience rich people so all the acceptable solutions seem to give all the onus to change on to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How does a congestion charge improve or make operationally possible trains or giving BRT dedicated lanes? 1. Money 2. Land How do I remove street parking without harming poor car commuters, anyhow? You're essentially saying that anything that hurts poor, long-distance car commuters who refuse to take trains is a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
The return for most congestion charges usually isn't enough to fund sizable transit projects, it is basically just taxing poor people out of an area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Plus rich people are looking forward to legitimizing their fiefdoms when government falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Not sure how you can make wholesale societal change in 11 years possible in a way that doesn't involve pain or inconvenience. And this is why a congestion charge is dumb as a climate policy. If we’re going to try to ban all ICE vehicles in under two decades a $5 congestion charge isn’t even in the ballpark of the beginnings of getting us there in time. You’re getting all the negatives of a regressive as gently caress tax while not actually reaping much benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
The wealthy should also be heavily taxed. Like congestion fees or value capture taxes, this is apparently beyond the capability of a city, though. Reducing private car subsidies slightly: impossible. Full eco-communism: possible, somehow. I need to remove cheap parking to improve bus service. This will hurt car commuters who refuse to use trains. What do I do? You know what also sucks about traffic congestion? The toll on your lungs. Who in Boston lives near the highways that serve suburban commuters? Poor folks. https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-asthma-attacks-stockholm Insanite fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Insanite posted:1. Money You don’t need a congestion charge to make lanes or roads bus only. A congestion charge doesn’t improve mass transit intrinsically. Insanite posted:You know what also sucks about traffic congestion? The toll on your lungs. Who in Boston lives near the highways that serve suburban commuters? Poor folks. You bring this up, but the plan you're talking about wouldn't even charge a congestion fee for most of that highway traffic: quote:A $5 charge for every trip made in a private vehicle that starts or ends within a zone that rings Downtown, Back Bay, the Seaport, and the Longwood medical areas (Figure 24). A congestion fee might make sense for Boston in general, but its a poor way to fund climate change or public transit. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You don’t need a congestion charge to make lanes or roads bus only. Again, if you remove space for cars to park and drive, you're obviously putting parking at a worse premium than it is now. How is this not punishment for the poor, but congestion taxes are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Again, if you remove space for cars to park and drive, you're obviously putting parking at a worse premium than it is now. One is a relocation of public resources another is a regressive tax? And I wouldn't claim just removing parking is a good climate change policy either, its a means to an end (more public transit).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:One is a relocation of public resources another is a regressive tax? Your means to an end that means that I, a poor supercommuter who refuses to even look at a train, have to pay more in parking. Feels pretty punishing. My boss, meanwhile, who is a wealthy supercommuter who refuses to even look at a train, goes on unaffected. Why would you ignore the impact of your policy suggestion like that? That's just slight of hand. (Cajoling people however you can out of cars and into anything else is good. )
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Insanite posted:(Cajoling people however you can out of cars and into anything else is good. ) The point you keep missing is that congestion charges are a bad way to do that and will likely backfire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
One thing that I see that works fairly well where I live is commuter transit centers with plenty of parking. People park there, outside the city core, and then take the train or rapid bus transit into downtown. Parking in downtown is a minimum of 20$ a day anyway. Shorter drive or even walkable transit centers definitely reduce the strain. The transit centers are also having land purchased around them to upzone as much as they can so its more affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The point you keep missing is that congestion charges are a bad way to do that and will likely backfire. Why would congestion charges rolled out with expanded bus and train service backfire? Bus reliability and ridership improved in London's core immediately after they implemented congestion pricing there. And why is disparately impacting the poor by increasing the price of parking okay with you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Why would congestion charges rolled out with expanded bus and train service backfire? Bus reliability and ridership improved in London's core immediately after they implemented congestion pricing there. Well the proof is in the very article you linked about how the city is backing away from the plan's congestion charges because they're seen as too punishing on lower income people. Hope it wasn't too important to the plan overall. Meanwhile the per-vehicle mile fee in that same plan isn't getting as much pushback based on the article you posted. London didn't implement congestion pricing over climate, they implemented congestion pricing over congestion. Congestion charges make sense to fight congestion, but they're a poor fit as a climate tool. quote:And why is disparately impacting the poor by increasing the price of parking okay with you? Because regressive taxes are fundamentally different than public resource allocation issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Pushing people away from cars, however, is good. So you're really okay with disproportionately hurting the poor as long as it's a matter of resource allocation rather than regressive taxes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Pushing people away from cars, however, is good. Depends on the externalities of the policy, which seems to be too complex of a concept for you. quote:So you're really okay with disproportionately hurting the poor as long as it's a matter of resource allocation rather than regressive taxes? I reject your framing, parking restrictions to support public transit don't disproportionately hurt the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
How can making parking more expensive for poor commuters not hurt them? You can't just reject that. It's exactly what will happen if the things you admit are good for CO2 reduction--adding bus lanes, train capacity, bike infrastructure, etc.--occur. Drivers with money can deal. Drivers without money can't. The only really fair solution is banning cars, assigning people units in mixed-income social housing close to job centers for maximum efficiency, and allocating collectively held resources to fund whatever climate poo poo needs doing. That's closer to what I'm actually for in a God Mode sense, but it's probably not doable in within, say, the timeframe we have until all vertebrate life is dead and jellyfish rule all. e:vvvv if destroying capitalism is a prerequisite to avoiding the 11 year point of no return, isn't there no hope for anything? Insanite fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
How come all the market solutions to this problem caused by unrestrained markets don't work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
At this point, with the news coming out about how much aerosols do to keep temperatures down, I'm starting to think we need to do some hard-core geo-engineering with the risk of a Snowpiercer scenario combined with emissions reduction to actually survive this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Jamie_Woodward_/status/1090684896060805122quote:A gigantic cavity - two-thirds the area of Manhattan and almost 1,000 feet (300 meters) tall - growing at the bottom of Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica is one of several disturbing discoveries reported in a new NASA-led study of the disintegrating glacier. The findings highlight the need for detailed observations of Antarctic glaciers' undersides in calculating how fast global sea levels will rise in response to climate change. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
I thought this 'new' climate thread was trying not to descend into nihilism & gloom.... If we all think happy thoughts maybe it'll all go away lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Re: Tax/Charge Chat Your discussion has me thinking about two interrelated things:
The natural conclusion along those lines would be 'new transit straight cannibalizes old infrastructure.' Not sure how transit's funded, though. Would congestion charges, etc. raise enough to be worthwhile? Doesn't exactly sound like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:https://twitter.com/Jamie_Woodward_/status/1090684896060805122 Glad to see PIG and Thwaites doing their job to keep us on track for 3 meters of SLR by 2100 from the West Antarctica side. I'm sure there will be some other paper about Totten or another East Antarctica glacier with similarly gloomy findings in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Re: Tax/Charge Chat The report advocates for a few reasonably drastic changes. For example, I think 45% in-city and 30% out-city reductions in car ownership. Not commuting--ownership. This would be made possible by drastically improving the reach, reliability, and frequency of non-car transportation systems. If you're still choosing to drive into the core at that point, you either have to because your job requires that you drive something, or you're just saying gently caress it to the other systems. Even if you're living two hours away and commuting regularly to the city for some reason, you could still park at a municipal garage or lot on the periphery of the regional rail system. Case 1 can be solved by ensuring that employers adequately compensate employees for vehicle use. Case 2 eventually becomes a sin tax in this scenario. It might discourage a few people from driving. As culture and norms shift, it's probably less meaningful. But really nothing matters because everything just seems to be accelerating, doom, etc. The likeliest scenario is that we do too little, a bunch of Hyperloop tunnels get built, and then we all drown. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Discouraging driving in most north american cities will always be regressive as long as the current paradigm of the lower classes needing to work multiple jobs with lovely schedules and odd hours exists. Broke people with no car are so tremendously disadvantaged compared to slightly less broke people with a car it isnt even funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Dismantling capitalism is the only way to avoid global catastrophe and it staggers me that so many people have yet to realize this despite overwhelming evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
drat, one day of abstinence and this thread has gone  .Trainee PornStar posted:I thought this 'new' climate thread was trying not to descend into nihilism & gloom.... I'm certain Rime is thinking very happily by now. Jokes aside, it's a serious problem and a legit discussion about how a functioning economical system can work in a globally warming world, as profit only does not seem to help the environment in general. Unless we find a way to heavily monetize saving the environment, maybe. Or how, or if, we can change or hope to change human desires in a way that doesn't wreck this planet entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
I've been ready for years and it's part of why I don't bother saving for retirement. By the time I'd be taking it I'm 100% certain we will either have realized what we need to do in order to survive and 'retirement' will be both paid for by a social safety net and also nothing like a modern retirement where you just stop working and get money to continue living in a capitalist society, or the world will suck so loving bad I won't want to grow old in it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Dismantling capitalism is the only way to avoid global catastrophe and it staggers me that so many people have yet to realize this despite overwhelming evidence. I mean, yeah. Maintaining capitalism in some way points you down the path of imperfect policies, like congestion taxes, allowing cars to exist, and not forcibly relocating people to an arcology of their choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Capitalism actively fights climate change mitigation because it's not profitable whilst simultaneously making it worse. It isn't anything to do with policy, it's that helping the environment and mitigating climate change are diametrically opposed to making a profit and maintaining a consumer population. Talking about parking and congestion is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic IMO; until things stop costing money and people stop needing jobs to stay alive nothing will change. I feel that most of the doom and gloom posters are simply being realistic about the possibilities of that stuff happening and naturally draw the conclusion that humanity as a whole will never start giving a gently caress until we're forced kicking and screaming into sudden, painful change and a political regime forged in wars with billions of casualties. By which point most of the environment we're talking about saving will have already disappeared, thus crippling the futures of people yet to be born.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Capitalism actively fights climate change mitigation because it's not profitable whilst simultaneously making it worse. It isn't anything to do with policy, it's that helping the environment and mitigating climate change are diametrically opposed to making a profit and maintaining a consumer population. Talking about parking and congestion is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic IMO; until things stop costing money and people stop needing jobs to stay alive nothing will change. I feel that most of the doom and gloom posters are simply being realistic about the possibilities of that stuff happening and naturally draw the conclusion that humanity as a whole will never start giving a gently caress until we're forced kicking and screaming into sudden, painful change and a political regime forged in wars with billions of casualties. By which point most of the environment we're talking about saving will have already disappeared, thus crippling the futures of people yet to be born. Shhh, help me build a life boat out of these deck chairs
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
I fully accept that the most likely outcome is annihilation. I just like trains, and thinking of ways to make trains better is much more appealing than facing that. Also acceptable: a man hive. Insanite fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jan 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Btw the London congestion charge again actually contributed little to public transit, I much rather see some type of progressive fee/tax than a flat fee. Also, the London public transportation system while okay(ish), is actually quite expensive for average people, the underground itself is a bit obscene. You can push more poor drivers onto buses but it doesn't intrinsically fix the issue compared to actually spending some real money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, both the London and Stockholm congestion charges reduced traffic, improved bus performance, increased bus ridership, and kicked in some revenue to their respective transportation systems. These are things that you want when while you're forcing people out of their cars with cheaper fares and better overall performance, which is probably the best you can do given the constraints of our political system. Driving should be expensive, or even taboo, really, especially in places where you have good options to avoid it. When it can be taxed progressively, it should be. The same could be said for any number of behaviors that have contributed to our current situation. We are all dead. Insanite fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
this is why things are so hopeless, even people with a moderate grasp on the scope of the problem think "oh no but this infinitesimal step will be regressive" and deadlock any hope of anything happening. newsflash idiots, all the bad things coming will hurt the poor the most. if you're well-actually'ing anything from happening now you're just saying "man i really wanna gently caress the poor *much* harder but a decade or two later". 50 - 80% of cars have to go, period. 50 - 80% of car owners are poor. you cannot fix that, get the gently caress over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
News flash idiot targeting the poor while the rich sacrifice nothing is how populist shitheads end up getting elected, the public vote for the worst option in referendums and the world quickly plunges head first into the next great political calamity that just makes poo poo worse. Until the rich stop with their bullshit and accept that there can be no effective response to climate change that doesn't actually affect their balance sheet, there will be no forward movement on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
give money to the poor in the form of a generous basic income. instantly cuts down on driving by half. from there, re-zone everything into mostly walkable or bikeable districts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
it's not even feasible to discourage driving how the us is laid out, rural or urban wise it's a loving rat maze half-designed to genuinely be unwalkable and need a car
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 03:02
|
|
