A lot of economic activity requires cars. Delivery, workers coming with equipment, waste management, and so on. Every construction worker in Paris will tell you that it's very difficult to work there, and that they have doubled their prices as a result.
These people are HELPED by anti-car legislation because it clears the congestion for them to run their business.
Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
If it's really only a difference of a few cars then there should be a dozen other ways to get a similar effect without enacting a regressive tax.
Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?
It's a compulsory fee charged by the government not based on income/consumption. That's the most regressive tax. Even sales tax is less regressive than that.
> it primarily assists commuters and small businesses
Relative to any alternative that reduces congestion without charging fees, it doesn't. Even relative to doing nothing, the people being deterred are the ones paying the cost, and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
> Relative to any alternative that reduces congestion without charging fees, it doesn't.
These? Don't exist. We're not going to sit here and argue against hypothetical, made-up solutions.
> and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
Sigh. No, the most price sensitive people are riding the subway, because the subway is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and faster than owning and operating a car. This is targeting the people right above those people, who, because they have a bit more money, think they need to drive. They don't. They should be riding the subway. And now, they are. They might complain - but really, they're saving money.
The infrastructure changes required to get cars out meant to reduce the flow speed of cars. As a result, even buses, who have dedicated lanes, are much slower.
[EDIT]: since I'm being answered that it isn't true, here is a chart made by the city hall about the decreasing speed on Paris' roads:
EDIT: Okay, to expand, it's true that speed limits in progressive cities have been falling for a while. This is meant reduce the number of pedestrain fatalities and overall make the cities safer and more pleasant.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that traveling by car is worse. These, in combination with anti-congestion legislation, make driving faster. The thing about driving is that broad roads and clear visibility encourage bad behavior, like speeding and tailgating. This actually increases traffic. It's counter-productive, but reducing speed can improve flow.
Paris has an ever increasing congestion caused by those measures, as most of the drivers are professionals linked to the city's economic activity who need to get there. Deliveries, constructions vehicules and workers, and so on. It is so bad that surface public transports are being shunned and see usage decrease because they are too slow.
That's not what they were talking about. Sure, some people need cars to transport things, but most of the people who complain about this kind of thing just wanna commute in their car.
