The original argument was whether congestion pricing has any effect on behavior. I proposed a model specifying conditions under which it would or would not (hence the distinction between utilitarian and non-utilitarian motivation.) That was dismissed as "philosophy" with red herrings about efficiency of different financing mechanisms (on which i said that I agree but this not what I am arguing), regressive or "punitive" aspect of user fees, potential for surveillance.
[...]
.....
Once Doug, Jordan and James began posting and discussing actually existing data about how London's plan has (or hasn't, depending upon who you ask) worked, the thread moved past a consideration of competing models and into a comparison of idea vs. act. This is one reason why the motivation models you presented were described as "philosophy". We're talking about a working system here, one which is being celebrated as an example for NYC. It's reasonable to dissect it for forensic information.
Wojek wrote:
None of this speaks to the proposition that most people do respond to price signals and therefore they will likely respond to congestion price signals. This proposition has not been refuted in this debate.
[...]
....
Perhaps not. But as I wrote above, the current question is whether the proposed system will accomplish the goals set. To me, that's much more compelling than a debate about price signals.
Wojtek wrote:
J&J are known fans of the status quo on this list - from gun ownership, to health care, to housing speculations, to suburban sprawl, to auto-based transportation. That is their value judgment - just as it is my value judgemtn to dislike these things. Both are a matter of personal preference to which everyone is entitled. Desgutibus non est disputandum.
[...]
...
As longtime Monroe watchers are aware, I consistently disagree with James' vision of housing construction patterns and road building. Still, every argument must be evaluated on its individual merits. I also disagree with the local priest's view of how the universe is ordered. That doesn't mean I'm going to assume it's 2 PM if he tells me it's 3.
Wojtek wrote:
But shedding crocodile tears that small car user fee will negatively impact the poor, while ignoring the heavy cost that cars have already imposed on that population group to justify one's value judgement strikes me as disingenuous, at the very least. It is no different than the right wing propaganda line claiming that union membership is bad for the working class, because some union officials are corrupt and misappropriate union dues. Or that government regulation is bad, because it increases the price or forces the bosses to move jobs overseas. These canards focus on small short term costs while ignoring much greater long term benefits.
[...]
....
Once again, the proper focus here is on the question of whether or not congestion pricing -- as currently practiced in the City of London and proposed for NYC -- is well designed and effective. Are we pursuing the wrong rabbit? As a results-oriented person, that is the only thing I want to know.
And finally, Wojtek wrote:
if you get annoyed by what I write - what forces you to read it or react to it? Your peace of mind is just one click of the delete button away.
.....
I don't press the delete button because I'm not 12 years old. Just because I express irritation with some of your on list habits doesn't mean I don't value many of your contributions.
Odin's eye! Why does everything have to be so binary?
.d.