6 ms·

Always the plumber who can afford every other toll but not the very low priced congestion pricing. No other occupation ever gets mentioned so we must think of t

Always the plumber who can afford every other toll but not the very low priced congestion pricing. No other occupation ever gets mentioned so we must think of the non-existent hundreds of thousands of plumbers who can’t afford it.

baud147258 14d ago
My point is that the parent to whom I was responding didn't address the cases where one need a motor vehicle for their work. If it had been addressed as 'those cases will have to pay for the charge and adapt their prices', I wouldn't have mentioned it. Of course, as pointed in another (more useful) response to my comment, for those cases it might become cheaper since they might spend less time stuck in traffic.
- righthand 13d ago
  My counter point is very few people have those requirements beyond plumbers. That’s why everyone always uses the plumbers as an example. And as you stated someone else's point is that since there are very few plumbers they would benefit. So my point is that those people aren’t a large enough group to matter in the decision of implementing congestion pricing because their negatives from it are nonexistent or over-exaggerated.
  - baud147258 13d ago
    > very few people have those requirements beyond plumbers. I'd say everyone who's working in the various home improvements/renovations, so carpenters, tillers, HVAC/boilers installers and maintainers, roofers, painters, kitchen designers, those who install plancher or carpets...
    - baud147258 13d ago
      and taking into account a minority that will have no choice but to interact with the new regulation (unlike service or white collar worker for whom it would be easier to take public transportation) seems like a good idea, no?
      - righthand 12d ago
        They were taken into account and the result is that the negative effects to them were negligible to the gains. They ultimately don’t matter in the end game. Sorry! But not sorry! The MTA did a 10 year long study. It wasn’t something that appeared out of the blue.

baud147258 14d ago

My point is that the parent to whom I was responding didn't address the cases where one need a motor vehicle for their work. If it had been addressed as 'those cases will have to pay for the charge and adapt their prices', I wouldn't have mentioned it. Of course, as pointed in another (more useful) response to my comment, for those cases it might become cheaper since they might spend less time stuck in traffic.

righthand 13d ago
My counter point is very few people have those requirements beyond plumbers. That’s why everyone always uses the plumbers as an example. And as you stated someone else's point is that since there are very few plumbers they would benefit. So my point is that those people aren’t a large enough group to matter in the decision of implementing congestion pricing because their negatives from it are nonexistent or over-exaggerated.
- baud147258 13d ago
  > very few people have those requirements beyond plumbers. I'd say everyone who's working in the various home improvements/renovations, so carpenters, tillers, HVAC/boilers installers and maintainers, roofers, painters, kitchen designers, those who install plancher or carpets...
  - baud147258 13d ago
    and taking into account a minority that will have no choice but to interact with the new regulation (unlike service or white collar worker for whom it would be easier to take public transportation) seems like a good idea, no?
    - righthand 12d ago
      They were taken into account and the result is that the negative effects to them were negligible to the gains. They ultimately don’t matter in the end game. Sorry! But not sorry! The MTA did a 10 year long study. It wasn’t something that appeared out of the blue.