Yes and no. to the extent that it actuall represents safety issues, no I don't agree. You birng up an interesting point though, perhaps we whouldn't require annual emissions inspections but make them biannual. Seems like a good way to save peopel money and recognizes the significant increases in car quality that have been achieved by the auto industry over the past decade.
why is that? If a person is poor, buys a car, maintains it, and pays the cost of operating it it's not elitist. If you charge them extra for the privilege of owning a car, that would be elitist.

It's unrealistic to cahrge per use on all roadways. As for tolls, why would I be against them? You are paying for use. You are proposing an extra charge just to be somewhere, not to use something (except public space).



It was shot down in NYC because it was viewed as elitist (whic Bloomberg probably is). We'll have to agree to disagree. I think NYC has effective congestion pricing already. They just want a new revenue stream to fund something they should already be funding. It's like me telling my boss, I spent my mortgage money on horseraces, please give me a raise.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

El, I'm also having trouble understanding why it's okay to have tolls on certain roadways (76, 276, NJTP) but not others (Center City grid). It seems that in both cases, a levy is charged or would be charged based on a special benefit provided by accessing those roads - speed in the case of the highways and downtown magic in the case of Walnut St.

I have to take omnivore's side here - that congestion charges are probable okay in principle but not needed, and certainly not politically possible, in Philadelphia. But if I had my way, I would tax all roadways, in the form of an increased gas tax, which has the benefits of selecting in favor of newer, smaller, and more efficient vehicles and also being easier and cheaper to implement and collect. Though, I'd use the money raised to offset other tax cuts (payroll? corporate income?) rather than use it as new revenue.

One is being charged for the use of the road, the other is being charged for the use of public space. A toll is like the capital fee on your electric bill while a congestion charge is like the union league's entrance fee. the only reason it would be politically infeasible is if most people don't agree that a congestion charge is the same as a toll. As noted earlier, there are numerous arguments against a congestion charge although recently I pointed out that I thought that the fact it is elitist is the most likely reason it won't pass...rather than a real cost benefit analysis. the net effect is the same. A congestion charge has no more reason to pass based on merit than on political acceptance.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Sorry, I still don't get it. In both tolling and congestion charges, there's a fee levied to drivers for access to certain stretches of road. How would a Center City congestion charge really different from a toll on roads downtown? At least besides the justification for them and the likely payers?

I agree with you that congestion charges are bad ideas for several reasons, but I don't think this is one of them.

congestion isn't charging for the roads, it's charging for the use of public space. what's the difference in cost between a car on market st at 2 am and 6 pm? nothing. of course, if you tolled all roads you'd remove the gas tax.
that may well be, but that's a separate issue from not recognizing the inherent difference from charging cost recovery and charging for the use of public space (with road costs already paid for with tax dollars). The net impact, of course, is easier commutes for thsoe that can afford it.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"