No my point is that it's too expensive for everyone and many of the people whom peak period tolls and congestion charges would impact are people who don't have much choice but to drive to work.
I am not as draconian or as hard-hearted as this may come across, but I react poorly to this kind of rhetoric. Reminds me of what teenagers say when Daddy won't take them to the mall to be with their friends. And frankly, all political stripes use this argument so I'm not being partisan by calling it out. Politicians are too ready to say that people "must have" something as if there is no choice. There is always choice.
There are people who can't afford the loss of disposable income as a matter of survival and there are people who can't afford the loss of disposable income because it affects issues that are very dear to them but that are fundamentally above the threshold of survival.
When we talk about "can't afford tolls", we are largely talking about a suburban population living autocentric lifestyles, for whom tolling would not cost them their homes, or their livelihoods - but might affect their ability to buy a new vehicle, their ability to fund support activities for their children or seniors, perhaps their choice of home (and quite likely pushing them further out into the suburbs to find cheaper real estate, thereby adding to their commute), whether they can take any vacation at all, or how often, very likely causing them to carry more debt and carry it longer, take more time to pay off their mortgage, etc. They will no doubt say this is harsh.
Sorry, none of this is "survival". The people who are at risk are moatly already within the City of Toronto, in low rent housing, and taking transit as their only option.
.
I am sure tolls would also push some people in the burbs below the "survival" level.... but only after they removed many non-survivial items from their budget, and only as collateral damage to a change in auto usage and demand that is transformational for our society and unquestionably in the right direction economically.
Like I said, I'm opening myself to blowback by saying this ... but my point is, making this kind of "can't" argument is extreme and more rhetorical than factual. It's certainly not evidence based. I'm not saying I dispute the impact, or that I don't have sympathy.
- Paul