Because the motoring constituents will not have it!
-
-
-
your new makeover is great!
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can you engage with the substance of his arguments and not resort to name calling please?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1) Totally separate process w/ separate hurdles to implementing; 2) congestion pricing is NOT a revenue generator but exactly what it says: managing congestion & driving behavior through disincentives; 3) equity, equity, equity
-
On 3) what is the socioeconomic makeup of people who are able to drive and afford to park cars around the city relative to people who use TNCs? Do we know the answer to that?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Remember mass transit is heavily subsidized. Personal cars are huge profit centers for the State. Instead of taxing cars more heavily, lets stop subsidizing mass transit.
-
Cars are subsidized enormously via taxpayer funded roads and highways and uncompensated externalities from emissions. Get rid of those subsidies first, then move the $$ to new transit that actually works for a densely populated region instead of pushing sprawl and traffic.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you don't see that cars are liberty machines allowing people to habitate, socialize, work, and recreate where they like, i don't think I have the skills in 280 chars to convince you otherwise.
-
Cars play an important role. They’ve also allow us to strangle environment with unsustainable sprawl land use patterns - low-density sprawling development leading to massive carbon emissions (40% of CA carbon emissions are from transportation), long commutes, gridlock, etc.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Because Peskin’s wealthy, car-owning benefactors wouldn’t be happy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.