The lecturer argues that supposed advantages of congestion pricing are implausible. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing brings various positive results to the society.
First, the lecturer maintains that implementation of congestion pricing causes more severe accidents. Since the overall number of vehicles declines, there are higher chances for drivers to speed up. Therefore, there are higher risks of severe injuries due to increased speed. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing makes driving safer.
Next, the lecturer asserts that congestion pricing does not bring convenience to a city. He argues that need for public transportation will exceed the capacity, which leads to inconvenience in the long run. This refutes the reading passage's argument that congestion pricing will increase convenience of a public transportation network.
Finally, the lecturer points out that this system causes financial burden for local businesses. To be specific, congestion pricing can lag sales, which is detrimental for local retailers. This counters reading passage's assumption that congestion pricing will bring a positive effect on businesses by reducing delays and fuel consumption.
To sum up, the lecturer disagrees with the writer regarding the expected benefits of congestion pricing because of safety issues, inconvenience and financial burden.