The impression I got from the comments is that they started out by being
strongly adverse but became more balanced later on. Maybe the abusive people got
It always irks me that some people describe traffic management schemes as "just
to raise revenue" as if that was sufficient to condemn them. Surely if
governments at whatever level raise money by one means it implies that they can
either spend more on areas which need it or reduce taxes elsewhere -- and given
the political pressures one can be sure that they will take advantage of this
As with the London congestion charge, the scope of the proposed New York scheme
seems likely to be so restricted that hardly anyone will need to pay it. Surely
this answers the comments that it is "regressive". Of course those who object to
using public transport because it isn't good enough for them will have to pay --
that's the point.
Someone referred to carbon offsets, ignoring the fact that climate change is not
the only externality of motoring, as well as the large question marks over the
workings of the offsetting mechanism.
As for Mr Vickrey's principles, most of them look sound, but he doesn't seem to
have included the need for a transparent pricing system. This also applies to
public transport pricing -- which in the UK is far from transparent, especially
on main line trains. These also violate his principle 2, and also restrictions
on peak travel are so broad as to price casual travellers off main trains that
are far from overcrowded.