> We are not talking about maintenance of the
> infrastucture - we are talking about fees as the means
> of changing human behavior.
Yes, yes, we've been talking about that for years.
I'm against it. Get it?
I know: you and Doug think you should price people out of their "bad habits" ... but I prefer to believe that the best way to get people to not do something that they don't have much control over in the first place is to give them a better alternative.
Bloomberg held that promise (like lottery money going for education; see how that worked out?) out as a side-effect of this (bloated, inefficient, abusive, corrupt) proposal; if he really wants to help upgrade the transit system, he should just pay for it! Why all the extra costs? Why all the invasiveness? Why all the fudging and mythologizing?
And more to the point: when do we get to see the benefit from the last year of failed campaigning for an end result of NO CHANGE now that the idea didn't fly?
Still waiting, I am.
/jordan